Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.
This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."
|
dang it, nobody has liked my analogies this week. i battle WMATA and their "king can do wrong" soveriegn immunity all the time. currently they are claiming that they are not liable for a finger being cut off b/c of a broken gate/fence b/c get this . . .. .
the decision to put up or not put up a fence/gate was discretionary and therefore they are immune. they could have put up a fence, they could not have put up a fence, in their discretion they decided to put up a fence.
alos that the maintenance and repair of a fence on their property is not a proprietary function. really? you claiming the maintenacne of a fence on your property is not "propritary" in nature?
reading companies making decisions based on weighing the ecomonic cost vs doign the right thing; you should read the complaint filed in response to the '09 train crash in which 9 people dies. it is brutal. WMATA is hopefully screwed. i hate those people. they literally did what you outlined in your greyhound BOD hypo.