I may be wrong but I don't think the CEO of Ford Motor Company or any other Ford executive was tried for MANSLAUGHTER, though I agree that it was a much more clear cut example of corporate malfeasance that this case is.
No, no Ford executive faced criminal charges. I am not alone in thinking that they should have.
In the memo, they even take into account that the settlements they'd have to pay would be less because the victims would be low income, therefore their lives would cost less. I am still not over the sheer hatefulness of that sort of thinking more than 30 years later.
Sorry, I can't agree that suing corporate executives for the faulty work of their employees is any kind of justice or makes any legitimate legal sense without evidence this was done intentially as a policy.
If he, as owner of the company, was not responsible for the results of the work done, why was he getting paid the most?
If this man's company had installed multiple pools where multiple similar injuries had occured and he had flat out told his employees NOT to install the safety device, then I would say you have a case for manslaughter.
One dead child isn't enough?
How is this guy POSSIBLY more responsible than say the Merck scientists who knew for a fact their drug was causing heart attacks? Why hasn'ts anyone from Merck been brought up on manslaughter charges?
The scientists for Merck developed a drug. That means they came up with a formula and ran experiments to test the performance of that drug. The results of those experiments were turned over to the management of the company, who made a decision on what results they should turn over to the FDA.
If the data had been as clearcut as you imply (which it was not), then the managers on up were responsible. The scientists do not make the final decision on which studies to release or which drugs to sell.
The studies look a lot more convincing in hindsight, when the data from thousands of users is known. At the time? Not so clear.
You are missing a point, though. The safety valve is not a speculative new technology. It is a tried, proven technology that prevents deaths when using the product as intended (for swimming). The danger was known, the remedy was known but not applied.
Sorry, this case makes me sick. This is an example of super rich, whiny parents...the 'victim's father runs/ran one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street which means they are worth tens of millions...
Are you implying that these parents are in some way less bereaved from the loss of their child than parents who have factory jobs would be? That's just the flip side of the Ford reasoning: it's okay for the <x type> group to suffer because their lives aren't worth as much to us.
What difference does the father's source of income make? All his money cannot bring his child back.
who seek to place blame on someone else for this tragedy...no different than suing the parents who host a pool party and some kid drowns..and they are using their money to exact revenge as a way to salve their own guilty consciences.
Guilty for what?
They had a pool that was installed by a supposedly professional pool installer. Like me, these people probably wouldn't know a pool safety valve if it leapt up and bit them on the nose. So they did what any reasonable person would do--they hired a professional to do the job for them.
That professional failed to meet the legal standards and their child died due to that failure.
To me, that's criminal negligence.
