NationStates

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:25 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I remain convinced the category is inappropriate. The main thrust of grafs 1-2 is to guarantee plaintiff rights at law against private companies, which is the exact opposite of Advancement of Industry. The presence of the AoE "Tort Reform" within that category doesn't magically render all legislation regarding torts suddenly appropriate for Advancement of Industry. Unless you can show why this resolution is a more beneficial market intervention for private companies than the status quo in which nations may (say) prohibit all civil suits against large employers, or do nothing at all, this simply is not AoI.

Ooc: it reduces the need for regulation and advances the legal industry considerably. Bigger lawsuits = larger possible profit margins = industry expansion. One direct and one indirect advancement of industry.

After all, we apply this kind of analysis to Free Trade by allowing minor regulation to ultimately benefit the markets. This ultimately benefits industry by removing the need for a large amount of worker protection legislation. Such a literal reading of Categories would essentially eradicate several, and I am confident that, much like the International Aid subcategory of Health was treated, a less than purely literal interpretation will be acceptable.

Or, I'm wrong and GenSec will have to reconsider the legal standing of the recent Patent legislation as any similar resolutions that fit incompletely but satisfactorily into a category.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:11 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I remain convinced the category is inappropriate. The main thrust of grafs 1-2 is to guarantee plaintiff rights at law against private companies, which is the exact opposite of Advancement of Industry. The presence of the AoE "Tort Reform" within that category doesn't magically render all legislation regarding torts suddenly appropriate for Advancement of Industry. Unless you can show why this resolution is a more beneficial market intervention for private companies than the status quo in which nations may (say) prohibit all civil suits against large employers, or do nothing at all, this simply is not AoI.

Ooc: it reduces the need for regulation and advances the legal industry considerably. Bigger lawsuits = larger possible profit margins = industry expansion. One direct and one indirect advancement of industry.

After all, we apply this kind of analysis to Free Trade by allowing minor regulation to ultimately benefit the markets. This ultimately benefits industry by removing the need for a large amount of worker protection legislation. Such a literal reading of Categories would essentially eradicate several, and I am confident that, much like the International Aid subcategory of Health was treated, a less than purely literal interpretation will be acceptable.

Or, I'm wrong and GenSec will have to reconsider the legal standing of the recent Patent legislation as any similar resolutions that fit incompletely but satisfactorily into a category.

OOC: Yould could argue that by expanding the scope of who may be considered as culpable for a tort, people's civil liberties are increasing because they have more flexability in addressing wrongs, and thus that the resolution is Civil Rights. Though I doubt that it would fit better in that category than its current one, and certainly less obviously. But it leaves the question of how can something that seeks to change tort procedure not be an attempt at reform? It seems a bit unbalanced limit tort reforms to only proposals that shield industry from lawsuits, without providing an opposing category, say a legal reform category, that would allow for such changes. As of now, with the choices available, this is probably the closest category we have to the true effects this resolution would have and reflects its intenion.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:50 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:✂

Well I'd just replace reference to torts with the more generic term "civil wrong"

OOC: Sorry for the delay I was... being lazy.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: it reduces the need for regulation and advances the legal industry considerably. Bigger lawsuits = larger possible profit margins = industry expansion. One direct and one indirect advancement of industry.

After all, we apply this kind of analysis to Free Trade by allowing minor regulation to ultimately benefit the markets. This ultimately benefits industry by removing the need for a large amount of worker protection legislation. Such a literal reading of Categories would essentially eradicate several, and I am confident that, much like the International Aid subcategory of Health was treated, a less than purely literal interpretation will be acceptable.

Or, I'm wrong and GenSec will have to reconsider the legal standing of the recent Patent legislation as any similar resolutions that fit incompletely but satisfactorily into a category.

Don't forget the advance it represents to the labor industry.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:27 pm**

Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:✂

Well I'd just replace reference to torts with the more generic term "civil wrong"

OOC: Sorry for the delay I was... being lazy.

"A tort is distinct from a civil wrong. Racism is a civil wrong, but racism itself isn't really a tort."

Posted: **Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:02 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Aclion wrote:Well I'd just replace reference to torts with the more generic term "civil wrong"

OOC: Sorry for the delay I was... being lazy.

"A tort is distinct from a civil wrong. Racism is a civil wrong, but racism itself isn't really a tort."

-Celice unplugs her translator-
"Maudit chose"
-and after waiting several seconds plugs it back in.-

"It is broader yes... But I don't see that as a problem. The same principles that you applied to torts are equally valid for other civil wrongs. I'd also like to note that racism is not a civil wrong under WA unless my translator is on the fritz again and you meant racial discrimination. Even if it were in a given nation I'm not sure why you would want to allow employers to immunize themselves against liability for racism that take place under their watch."

Posted: **Tue Dec 27, 2016 5:33 am**

Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"A tort is distinct from a civil wrong. Racism is a civil wrong, but racism itself isn't really a tort."

-Celice unplugs her translator-
"Maudit chose"
-and after waiting several seconds plugs it back in.-

"It is broader yes... But I don't see that as a problem. The same principles that you applied to torts are equally valid for other civil wrongs. I'd also like to note that racism is not a civil wrong under WA unless my translator is on the fritz again and you meant racial discrimination. Even if it were in a given nation I'm not sure why you would want to allow employers to immunize themselves against liability for racism that take place under their watch."

"No, I mean racism between two parties without a relationship. A broader definition would hold employers liable for actions with no legal repercussions, but might have others. Such a system would be nonsensical at best, and at worse, detrimental to the court. A tort is a very specfic term with a specfic meaning, even if it evades adequate definition. That is why we use such terms of art, to narrow our meaning significantly without overextending ourselves linguistically. I'm not seeing a reason to replace the terms surrounding "tort" when the category itself makes use of the term."

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:30 pm**

OOC: Bump. I'm gonna submit this pretty soon. Like, not long after my other resolution reaches vote.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:36 pm**

“This looks good to me, full support. That said, and I have read the FAQ, some definitions would be nice.”

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:55 am**

OOC: Bump

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:10 am**

What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:41 am**

Liberimery wrote:What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.

We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:57 am**

The World Assembly representative for New Ciceria runs to the stand, eager to say his peice.

"We really do like this one, fantastic work on the proposal. We, in no way, had to research anything in this legislation and understood it completely from the beginning. The only concern that we have is that this proposal does not seem to impact people in managerial positions, only those in employer-employee relationships, which may still lead to some masters being unanswerable."

OOC:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
1. A plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single tortfeaser may enjoin and hold liable the tortfeasor's employer where the tortfeasor:

Posted: **Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:45 pm**

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Liberimery wrote:What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.

We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.

OOC: So adjusted to avoid noncompliance wank.

Posted: **Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:35 am**

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Liberimery wrote:What if a bus crash company is sued because one of their drivers showed up to work drunk and created an accident along his route? Let's assume that the driver's behavior raised no red flags to the company management or that he skipped procedures to prevent such an incident. This of course assumes that the driver was up to date on all mandatory safety procedures and the company was especially noted for its safety track record? I don't think the company should be held to trial for the damage a rogue employee caused.

We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.

OOC: I'd be utterly amazed if Sep's intent is to drive a stake through the heart of the concept of vicarious liability like so. Your outline would leave the victims of the drunk bus driver entirely without any redress should the driver either have no personal insurance or no assets. It's bonkers. Regardless of whether or not anyone copped the driver was polluted, it is entirely reasonable that the bus company and the driver both be held responsible for his actions, IE civil case or insurance payout from the bus company and criminal case against the driver. In most countries IRL this is how it would work. And in most countries, employees fuck ups on the employer's time are made good by the employer.

Posted: **Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:11 am**

OOC: This is why I've left this relatively vague. Whether a drunk driver is acting within the scope of their employment is a question of fact best placed before a jury, not a legislator, and I would leave it to the jury, or individual member states' authority to make it a matter of law, rather than subsume that authority by fiat with a resolution.

Posted: **Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:21 am**

Bananaistan wrote:
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
We find it unlikely that a bus driver inebriated enough to drunkenly cause an accident would not raise any red flags to his employer, the passengers, or some other person. However, assuming it is true, lawyers are masters at creative...comment dit-on...fucking bullshit. A quick consultation with the one on retainer at our mission here suggests that he would argue that driving drunk is both outside the scope of employment or, in the alternative, both intentional and reckless going either to clauses 1b or 3, depending on what the fact finder buys in a given jurisdiction.

OOC: I agree with Aclion, however, about the language. Torts and tortfeasors are a distinctly common law concept. The civil law equivalent would usually be delict (when rendered in English) (which is, at least for your purposes, the same thing) which are defined somewhere in a code but delictfeasor is not a word. I have no problem understanding what you mean by this resolution and translating it accordingly and implementing it (because I am inclined to do so anyway, being a fan of my pretend state having a legal system that functions in a somewhat realistic manner), but using common law terms is an invitation, in my opinion, to non-compliance in fact while maintaining compliance to the strict letter of what you wrote.

OOC: I'd be utterly amazed if Sep's intent is to drive a stake through the heart of the concept of vicarious liability like so. Your outline would leave the victims of the drunk bus driver entirely without any redress should the driver either have no personal insurance or no assets. It's bonkers. Regardless of whether or not anyone copped the driver was polluted, it is entirely reasonable that the bus company and the driver both be held responsible for his actions, IE civil case or insurance payout from the bus company and criminal case against the driver. In most countries IRL this is how it would work. And in most countries, employees fuck ups on the employer's time are made good by the employer.

OOC: That was an in-character comment. In character, that would be at least arguable in my jurisdiction for the simple fact that I, and therefore my state, are generally hostile to vicarious liability and refuse to make employers liable for the criminal acts of employees, as they are, by definition, outside the scope of employment. I am given to understand that even the most backwards of jurisdictions actually have at least some limit on those grounds, even if they do not actually extend quite to the posited scenario.

Out of character, I doubt this ever makes it to trial, since on publicity alone its cheaper to pay the victim with a settlement that includes a silence order and sweep it under the rug as quickly and quietly as possible. Even if I thought I would win in court, I would probably still tell my corporate client to pay the "hush money" and avoid the vultures that are the press.

Also, see the post by Sep, as apparently he at least intended to allow the rest of us to, as your hyperbolic pronouncement stated, "drive a stake through the heart" of this anyway.

Posted: **Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:51 pm**

This is well reasoned tort law, respondent superior in general is a just and common sense philosophy for tort damages

However, we do not believe it is the WA's place to mandate the specifics of case law for member nations. As we have always felt that the WA members are better served by this assembly minding it's own business and sticking to issues of pure and obvious international scope, we oppose.

ooc: basically i'd support this as legislation/case law for my own nation, but because i am sick and tired of people treating the WA like the EU rather then like the UN i am voting against it as a WA resolution

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:15 am**

The Overlord Kingdom has examined this resolution quite a lot, and if on one side we understand the wishes of the nation of proposed it, and agree with the desire....we also find that such issue may not be suited for an international deliberation, nor it has been explored in full in this resolution.

The lack of definitions is, as noted by the proposer, done so that it will not became a debate on those...but in such claim, he points out how it would be difficult to fully enact this resolution in the way intended and how it could be twisted around by nations who decide to not comply.

Our vote against is not because the scope of the resolution is wrong, but because the issues with it needs to be addressed and resolved, and the resolution itself reformed to compliance to the result of the debate, in order to have an actual text that can stand in a proper court of law and do it's job.

OOC: Is a good proposal, but really, you cannot skip a difficult part and then justify "because it will be a mess". By saying it will be a mess, you shot yourself in the foot.

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:59 am**

This is a blatant attack on economy and communist in nature. If this passes, Nighteye has said the following "The Separatist Peoples will feel the full wrath of trade sanctions for proposing a bill like this. We will not follow these rules, even if it means being kicked out"

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:59 am**

Firstaria wrote:The Overlord Kingdom has examined this resolution quite a lot, and if on one side we understand the wishes of the nation of proposed it, and agree with the desire....we also find that such issue may not be suited for an international deliberation, nor it has been explored in full in this resolution.

The lack of definitions is, as noted by the proposer, done so that it will not became a debate on those...but in such claim, he points out how it would be difficult to fully enact this resolution in the way intended and how it could be twisted around by nations who decide to not comply.

Our vote against is not because the scope of the resolution is wrong, but because the issues with it needs to be addressed and resolved, and the resolution itself reformed to compliance to the result of the debate, in order to have an actual text that can stand in a proper court of law and do it's job.

OOC: Is a good proposal, but really, you cannot skip a difficult part and then justify "because it will be a mess". By saying it will be a mess, you shot yourself in the foot.

OOC: The entire point of leaving definitions out is to leave freedom to member states on how to implement those meanings.

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:59 am**

HerpDeDerp wrote:This is a blatant attack on economy and communist in nature. If this passes, Nighteye has said the following "The Separatist Peoples will feel the full wrath of trade sanctions for proposing a bill like this. We will not follow these rules, even if it means being kicked out"

"Ambassador, I don't think you understand what this does."

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:46 am**

The Noralian Ambassador to the World Assembly cleared his throat before speaking.

"We admire the good intentions behind this proposal by Separatist Peoples. However, we find the lack of definitions disturbing, as we believe it gives other nations the leeway to ignore the provisions in this proposed resolution, if so they choose, with no negative consequences whatsoever. Therefore we will vote against this resolution."

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:09 am**

"I am sorry, Ambassador Bell, but I cannot vote in favor of this. I can think of several situations where an employer should not be liable for the actions of an employee. To give just one example, let's say an employee, in the course of his workday, is required by his employer to travel from one work site to another in his own car, and gets into a motor vehicle accident en route, damaging a potential defendant's car or property. Why should this person be able to sue the employee's company in this case? Our society is too litigious as it is, and a proposal like this would make it worse."

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:11 am**

I do not support this resolution and voted against it.

Posted: **Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:21 am**

As an ambassador for a new nation in the assembly my words may not hold much weight, but I do not believe this is or should be in the scope of the WA and therefore I opposed. I encourage other member nations to oppose as well lest the WA will continue to attempt to pass legislation outside of it's scope.

NationStates

[PASSED] Respondeat Superior