Slashdot Mirror
IBM Cleared in San Jose Cancer Liability Suit
kbeech writes "A jury In San Jose returned a unanimous verdict in favor of IBM in a case where plaintiffs claimed the company kept medical information on their condition from them." Slashdot hasn't covered this well, but evidence in the lawsuit has suggested that employees were heavily exposed to chemicals and that IBM was aware that their employees got cancer at higher rates than the general population.
This situation is a hard one for AnCaps like myself to resolve.
While it seems like IBM may have had some knowledge of statistsically higher death rates among these workers, there is also the belief that I hold that every worker are responsible to find out what risks a certain job holds.
Employers and employees really are on equal ground more than the general media wants you to believe. Both parties gain a profit from the jobs performed. If an employee wants to perform a job at a certain income, why is it the employer's role to let them know of any risks beforehand, unless the employee explicitly requests a risk assessment?
Cancer is such an odd condition. I honestly believe cancer isn't directly caused by one simple situation. So many variables can go into it. Smoking may cause cancer, but I believe smoking doesn't -- it is only a risk factor. Did these employees all eat regularly at a certain facility? Did they all live near factories that may have also contributed to the enhanced risk?
I read all the articles, and I'm fairly sure I agree with the jury that IBM should not be held liable. On the other hand, if employees asked in advance about the risks involved, and IBM blatantly lied, then they should be held guilty.
One thing is clear: the lesson learned is that you should always ask your employer in advance of any health risks involved in future work, and get their reply in writing.
"but evidence in the lawsuit has suggested that employees were heavily exposed to chemicals and that IBM was aware that their employees got cancer at higher rates than the general population."
The plaintiff's evidence was suggestive. The defendent's (IBM's) evidence was convincing.
Perhaps Slashdot was right to not cover this case very well.
If I, as a company, in good faith comply with all known legal requirements, and take as many steps as possible for worker safety, should I be held liable years later when something turns out to have been bad for my workers?
Take micro waves. They weren't known to cause problems, and initially micro wave ovens showed up everywhere in convenience stores. Then, low and behold, pace makers were found to be affected. Now, before that finding, should anyone injured by this mechanism be able to sue and hold liable whomever was involved, no matter how tenuously, for an unknown side-effect? I say no. This case's verdict confirms this concept, and to me is a just verdict.
A counter example is the tabacco industry, which withheld information on the extent of the damaging properties of its products from the general populace while continuing to strongly market its products. This is malicious negligence (IANAL FYI) and to my sense of justice should carry a penalty. And look, they were penalized, and this is another example of justice being served.
Lastly, I don't think these verdicts are necessarily pro-business, or anti-business, but merely necessary verdicts to enable people and companies to do business in this country. If every injured party was able to reap big verdicts over every little "injustice" or injury, then our business climate would be so terrible that no company would stay in the US for fear of being sued out of existance for something they could not have foreseen.
Take asbestos for instance, there was a product that no one knew would cause the problems it did later. In my opinion, I think the verdicts have been too far reaching, even hitting companies that bought bankrupt companies for their equipment (wish I still had a link to that story, was on cnn about 4 or 5 months ago). That's too far imo.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Now if there are a bunch of 20-30 year-old workers coming down with cancer, that might be pretty fishy.
In the Navy I was asked to do a bunch of painting in an enclosed compartment. I went to the safety office to get an appropriate resperator. They said - "We don't have the right equipment to fit you for one. So you can't have one." I said, "So since we can't be sure the fit will be perfect I have to do the work with no protection at all?" The answer- "Yes." Brilliant.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Er, you take my comments out of context then proceed to go on a rant about something that I didn't say (!)
I wrote:
It seems harsh if they were exposed with the company knowing about it, that they were denied some compensation for that
Note the emboldened bit that you conveniently removed and replaced with ellipsis, to completely change the sense of what I said. The point was that IBM allegedly knew the effects of the chemicals on the workers, but let them work in those conditions anyway.
Later I said if they were found against, you have to assume that they couldn't prove it and I always think it's easy to make a snap judgement based on your feelings for the parties involved though - In other words, the court had the full facts, and it's dangerous for outsiders to make emotional decisions without being in possession of those facts.
Jeez.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!