NationStates

Wallenburg wrote:"I suppose so. If this proposal remains exclusively relevant to international exchanges, then I accept this increased bureaucracy."

OOC: Plus, it'd be a cool bonus upon which to build a secret and powerful new world order! Muhahaha!

"Final thoughts?"

Sciongrad wrote:"Final thoughts?"

Mandate the free movement of labour and capital in all member nations.

Sciongrad wrote:"Final thoughts?"

"Do penguins have knees?"

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:"Final thoughts?"

Mandate the free movement of labour and capital in all member nations.

"Your wish is my command."

Sciongrad wrote:"Your wish is my command."

Arise, go forth and conquer as of old.

Fairburn: Clause One, as currently written, is a steaming pile of nonsense.

Neville: Um...I think what Ambassador Fairburn is trying to say is that the grammar in Clause One is rather...flawed. Also, we'd recommend making the definition of 'negligence' apply only to this proposal lest future authors who wish to use the term are backed into a corner.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: Clause One, as currently written, is a steaming pile of nonsense.

Neville: Um...I think what Ambassador Fairburn is trying to say is that the grammar in Clause One is rather...flawed. Also, we'd recommend making the definition of 'negligence' apply only to this proposal lest future authors who wish to use the term are backed into a corner.

"Huh? Defining a word in one resolution is not binding in future resolution."

Sciongrad wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: Clause One, as currently written, is a steaming pile of nonsense.

Neville: Um...I think what Ambassador Fairburn is trying to say is that the grammar in Clause One is rather...flawed. Also, we'd recommend making the definition of 'negligence' apply only to this proposal lest future authors who wish to use the term are backed into a corner.

"Huh? Defining a word in one resolution is not binding in future resolution."

Neville: Why, then, do multiple authors use the phrase 'for the purposes of this resolution' in their definitions?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:"Huh? Defining a word in one resolution is not binding in future resolution."

Neville: Why, then, do multiple authors use the phrase 'for the purposes of this resolution' in their definitions?

"Why, then, do multiple authors not use that phrase? GAR#2 does not and still defines war. Are all other resolutions bound by that definition of war? If you are correct, then there are several resolutions that contradict each other on account of varying definitions."

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Why, then, do multiple authors use the phrase 'for the purposes of this resolution' in their definitions?

OOC: Presumably, this is because of the same thing that occurs with 'all nations'. There is an implicit assumption vis-à-vis the defining scope, which can be made explicit if desired.

Sciongrad wrote:"If you are correct, then there are several resolutions that contradict each other on account of varying definitions."

Neville: Such as?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Why, then, do multiple authors use the phrase 'for the purposes of this resolution' in their definitions?

OOC: Presumably, this is because of the same thing that occurs with 'all nations'. There is an implicit assumption vis-à-vis the defining scope, which can be made explicit if desired.

OOC: All other active clauses restrict future legislation to some extent. Why are definitions the exception?

OOC: Sorry, not getting caught up in this. I absolutely cannot stand arguments over definitions. If you disagree with me, file a challenge. I'm proceeding anyway.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: All other active clauses restrict future legislation to some extent. Why are definitions the exception?

OOC: One could argue here that they are not active clauses. Defining words has been done in preambles and in what is considered the 'operative' body. Definitions do not have effects on member nations, but rather, act in a removed secondary manner. I happen to believe that definitions should apply over different resolutions and have a global scope over the statutory body, but that does not seem to currently be in vogue.

Sciongrad wrote:OOC: If you disagree with me, file a challenge.

OOC: I never made any allegation of illegality.

Neville: Now that Clause One is fixed, we are happy to extend our support.

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:OOC: If you disagree with me, file a challenge.

OOC: I never made any allegation of illegality.

Neville: Now that Clause One is fixed, we are happy to extend our support.

OoC: Mighta been talking to IA

"Submitting this soon. Last comments?"

Sciongrad wrote:"Submitting this soon. Last comments?"

"Viva Mexico."

You have my support.

I'm a bit concerned with cases where responsibility lies in a third party. Suppose for example that a worker is using a forklift in an unsafe manner and injures a bystander. A forklift would fall under the definition of a hazardous product and it is the construction worker was the negligent party, not the manufacturer. Yet if the injured party chose to sue the manufacture the CIC would still award damages to the plaintiff.

Aclion wrote:I'm a bit concerned with cases where responsibility lies in a third party. Suppose for example that a worker is using a forklift in an unsafe manner and injures a bystander. A forklift would fall under the definition of a hazardous product and it is the construction worker was the negligent party, not the manufacturer. Yet if the injured party chose to sue the manufacture the CIC would still award damages to the plaintiff.

"I'm not quite sure how a forklift would be a 'hazardous product' if the worker is using it in an unsafe manner, and the very definition of 'hazardous product' is contingent on the hazard being present even 'while used properly.' If the hazard is contingent on the operator being a jackass (rather than an actual product shortcoming) not only is the manufacturer by definition not at fault, but this resolution's provisions wouldn't even come into play in the first place."

"Some issues."

Sciongrad wrote:
3. Further defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise reasonable care or to follow relevant national or subnational product safety laws on hazardous products;

"You've included intentional or reckless disregard for statutes in with negligence. Negligence has no intent element, the others do. You're setting up odd precedent for negligence suits."

4. Establishes the Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, and grants it exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur involving hazardous products in international commerce;

"Most nations simply try the injury in the jurisdiction that the actual injury occurs."

5. Declares that any person (natural or legal) who suffers harm or loss due to a hazardous product in international commerce has the right to sue the person (natural or legal) responsible for said product in the CIC Trial Division;

"Perhaps allow them to sue any defendant who engages in business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling a product, so as to ensure that all possible sources of defect are captured."

1. If the plaintiff was negligent and if the defendant was not negligent, no damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be awarded attorney fees for the inconvenience that the plaintiff has caused,

"Attorney fees are an extraordinary measure, but generally in tort law, the winner can ask for attorneys fees. Your first clause refers to 'contributory negligence', which is a complete defense to a negligence claim. Perhaps use that terminology for precision."

If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent or if the plaintiff and the defendant were both negligent, compensatory damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff based on the standard of strict liability,

"So, if a plaintiff was 75% responsible, and the defendant merely 25% responsible, the defendant's compensation is 100%? Why not reduce the amount to the comparative amount of negligence? Products liability is, of course, a matter of strict liability, so the manufacturer or distributor is responsible for injuries regardless of their own fault, but they should not be responsible for the fault of consumers."

If the plaintiff was not negligent and if the defendant was negligent, treble damages and attorney fees shall be awarded to the plaintiff, thus compensating the plaintiff and discouraging the defendant from committing future negligence;

"Trebel damages are appropriate for punitive action. One does not apply punitive damages to negligence, but intentional or reckless action. Punitive damages seek as a deterrent, and one cannot easily deter an accidental error, as those are likely to happen regardless of the deterrence involved. That is the nature of an accident.

"I think you need to restructure your liability approach."

“I would definitely approve this. I have read it and I keep looking for something to critique but I honestly can’t find anything.”

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Aclion wrote:I'm a bit concerned with cases where responsibility lies in a third party. Suppose for example that a worker is using a forklift in an unsafe manner and injures a bystander. A forklift would fall under the definition of a hazardous product and it is the construction worker was the negligent party, not the manufacturer. Yet if the injured party chose to sue the manufacture the CIC would still award damages to the plaintiff.

"I'm not quite sure how a forklift would be a 'hazardous product' if the worker is using it in an unsafe manner, and the very definition of 'hazardous product' is contingent on the hazard being present even 'while used properly.' If the hazard is contingent on the operator being a jackass (rather than an actual product shortcoming) not only is the manufacturer by definition not at fault, but this resolution's provisions wouldn't even come into play in the first place."

I'm not sure why a forklift wouldn't be considered hazardous. Forklifts are hazardous even when used properly. That's why people who operate them, and people who work around them need to be trained to do so safely and use extreme care. It's why retail warehouses close off departments when they need to operate them in that area."

I chose forklifts because i'm most familiar with them but you would run into similar problems with firearms, as they are designed to kill when used properly, or with euthanasia devices which are only safe when they've malfunctioned. The issue isn't the definition of hazardous goods imo. It's the way liability is determined.

Aclion wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
"I'm not quite sure how a forklift would be a 'hazardous product' if the worker is using it in an unsafe manner, and the very definition of 'hazardous product' is contingent on the hazard being present even 'while used properly.' If the hazard is contingent on the operator being a jackass (rather than an actual product shortcoming) not only is the manufacturer by definition not at fault, but this resolution's provisions wouldn't even come into play in the first place."

I'm not sure why a forklift wouldn't be considered hazardous. Forklifts are hazardous even when used properly. That's why people who operate them, and people who work around them need to be trained to do so safely and use extreme care. It's why retail warehouses close off departments when they need to operate them in that area."

I chose forklifts because i'm most familiar with them but you would run into similar problems with firearms, as they are designed to kill when used properly, or with euthanasia devices which are only safe when they've malfunctioned. The issue isn't the definition of hazardous goods imo. It's the way liability is determined.

OOC: The problem here is that there is no difference between a manufacturing defect, a failure to warn, a design defect, or non-manufacturing negligence, like reckless driving of the forklift, which is why this needs to be revisited.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Some issues."

Sciongrad wrote:
3. Further defines "negligence" as a failure to exercise reasonable care or to follow relevant national or subnational product safety laws on hazardous products;

"You've included intentional or reckless disregard for statutes in with negligence. Negligence has no intent element, the others do. You're setting up odd precedent for negligence suits."

4. Establishes the Court of International Claims (CIC), which shall consist of a Trial Division and an Appellate Division, and grants it exclusive jurisdiction over all torts that may occur involving hazardous products in international commerce;

"Most nations simply try the injury in the jurisdiction that the actual injury occurs."

5. Declares that any person (natural or legal) who suffers harm or loss due to a hazardous product in international commerce has the right to sue the person (natural or legal) responsible for said product in the CIC Trial Division;

"Perhaps allow them to sue any defendant who engages in business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling a product, so as to ensure that all possible sources of defect are captured."

1. If the plaintiff was negligent and if the defendant was not negligent, no damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be awarded attorney fees for the inconvenience that the plaintiff has caused,

"Attorney fees are an extraordinary measure, but generally in tort law, the winner can ask for attorneys fees. Your first clause refers to 'contributory negligence', which is a complete defense to a negligence claim. Perhaps use that terminology for precision."

If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent or if the plaintiff and the defendant were both negligent, compensatory damages shall be awarded to the plaintiff based on the standard of strict liability,

"So, if a plaintiff was 75% responsible, and the defendant merely 25% responsible, the defendant's compensation is 100%? Why not reduce the amount to the comparative amount of negligence? Products liability is, of course, a matter of strict liability, so the manufacturer or distributor is responsible for injuries regardless of their own fault, but they should not be responsible for the fault of consumers."

If the plaintiff was not negligent and if the defendant was negligent, treble damages and attorney fees shall be awarded to the plaintiff, thus compensating the plaintiff and discouraging the defendant from committing future negligence;

"Trebel damages are appropriate for punitive action. One does not apply punitive damages to negligence, but intentional or reckless action. Punitive damages seek as a deterrent, and one cannot easily deter an accidental error, as those are likely to happen regardless of the deterrence involved. That is the nature of an accident.

"I think you need to restructure your liability approach."

"Sciongrad is reviving this effort and will begin by considering these comments."