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.

Comments

Conundrum

[dada21]

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.

Convincing vs suggestive evidence

[JimJinkins]

"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.

Age of defendents a factor?

[xanthines-R-yummy]

I don't know the details of all 200 lawsuits but the ones mentioned in the SFgate site says the 2 guys are 60 and 70 something. That's a very susceptible age to have cancer in general, I believe. If anything, they are pretty close to the average lifespan in the US anyway for men. However, I think that IBM should offer some sort of compensation as responsible corporation if not for the very minimal effect of avoiding a publicized lawsuit (condidtions of most settlements seem to be sealed.)

Now if there are a bunch of 20-30 year-old workers coming down with cancer, that might be pretty fishy.