NationStates

A pale man with graying hair and a wrinkled, gray suit, complete with a steel-colored tie and faded white dress shirt, walked into the debate chamber, followed by a foot-dragging ambassador Bell.

The dour-looking man settled himself behind but uncomfortably close to the podium, looking expectantly at the C.D.S.P. ambassador. Bell, for his part, was doing any tantrum-filled six year old proud, taking so long to walk to the front of the room.

It was an agonizing several minutes, but the debate hall is only so long. Bell tapped the mic a few times and sighed directly into it.

"Your various Excellencies, Ambassadors, Sirs and Madams, Lords and Ladies, Princes and Princesses, Heads of State, Ministers, Directors, Secretaries-ow!"

The grey man straightened, recovering from the kick to Bell's shin.

"And lawyers" Bell growled the last word, "I present, with all the apologies I can muster, Hershal Crawford IV, partner of Herbert, Crawford, and Eschellmensteinburg - wait, seriously? Ok - and Eschellmensteinburg, L.L.P. and special counsel from the Confederate Dominion Foreign Affairs Ministry."

Bell looks over his shoulder at the attorney, who nods.

"I have been directed, upon advice from counsel and threats by my gover-"

Crawford vigorously signals for Bell to stop.

"Directed upon advice from my counsel to submit the following draft for your review."

Crawford nods.

Respondeat Superior
Regulation | Legal Reform

---

Noting an ominous silence surrounding the topic of tort reform

Believing that tort reform serves as an effective alternative to industry regulation by providing an opportunity for injured individuals to hold liable their institutional tortfeasors,

Holding that expanding the duty of business entities to the actions of their employees protects employees, allows adequate compensation to victims, promotes higher standards for safe conduct, and spreads the cost of risk equitably,

Disdainful of industry practices that allow business to use employees as shields against incentivized or overt negligence, and

Determined to prevent it,

The World Assembly hereby enacts the following:

1. A plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single defendant may enjoin and hold liable the defendant's employer where the defendant:
   
   
   1. had an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business;
      
   2. Was acting in the scope of employment at that time; and
      
   3. Was the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff.
2. A plaintiff who wins a judgment in such a case may enforce judgment against both the employer and employee, jointly and severally.
   
   
3. An employer may seek indemnity from an employee for costs incurred only when the employee’s actions were reckless or intentional. In situations where a cross-claim is procedurally inappropriate, member states may not hold such claims precluded until that claim is tried on its merits.
   
   
4. Member states may award non-compensatory damages in such a case only when failing to do so would be a manifest injustice.

"You will notice that there are no definitions." Bell looks at the attorney for confirmation that this was, in fact, admissible information. "That was deliberate. The definition section could easily become a legal textbook in its own right.

Crawford leans over and whispers in Bell's ear. "To which all intellectual and marketing rights, including reproductions, references, and incorporation would be retained by Herbert, Crawfor-are you really doing this right now, Crawford?"

Crawford leans in to whisper to Bell again, but Bell just leans into the microphone. "Look, just tell me what you think this needs."

PARSONS: Hmm... Rereading the proposal, I think that a link needs to be built to solve the principal agent issue in this case. While I agree that if an employee is acting on the behalf of the employer and causes some damages in line with the will of the employer he ought be liable, it is very probably impossible to create a meaningful and applicable distinction between the employer's wishes and the employee's actions, in the case of something like vague directives. Creation of an international standard on that level might not be suitable, but rather, such changes be devolved to more material institutions.

OOC: Let the master respond. Altum videtur. Oh, and one last thing, this is quite understandable. I see no reason to attempt to drown SP with facetious claims that he is attempting to jargon everyone out of the debate given its exceptional clarity and precision.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Believing that tort reform serves as an effective alternative to industry regulation by providing an opportunity for injured individuals to hold liable their institutional tortfeasers,

"The Imperium prefers to prevent failure in the first place, rather than scramble to repair its damages after the fact."

Separatist Peoples wrote:2. A plaintiff who wins a judgment in such a case can enforce judgment against both the employer and employee.

"I do believe it is the place of the State, or perhaps the Court, to enforce Law or Ruling, as opposed to independent actors."

Separatist Peoples wrote:3. An employer may indemnify an employee for damages only when the employee’s actions were reckless or intentional.

"The Imperium fails to see how sheer incompetence, or simple maliciousness constitute grounds to shield an accomplice from restitution.

In any case, The Imperium has few substantive objections to this legislation at this time. We will await further investigation on the part of our personnel, and further discussion from assembled delegations before returning our official position on the matter."

OOC:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Oh, and one last thing, this is quite understandable. I see no reason to attempt to drown SP with facetious claims that he is attempting to jargon everyone out of the debate given its exceptional clarity and precision.

There's no need for sniping, and there is quite the difference between Legal Jargon, which can, by and large, be understood easily and quickly with a google-search, and Economic Jargon, which requires in-depth examination and understanding of the theories and mathematics behind them, as well as general agreement that various assumptions are correct. Pretending this is the same situation, is what's really facetious here.

Tinfect wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Believing that tort reform serves as an effective alternative to industry regulation by providing an opportunity for injured individuals to hold liable their institutional tortfeasers,

"The Imperium prefers to prevent failure in the first place, rather than scramble to repair its damages after the fact."

"Good thing you can do that, still."

Separatist Peoples wrote:2. A plaintiff who wins a judgment in such a case can enforce judgment against both the employer and employee.

"I do believe it is the place of the State, or perhaps the Court, to enforce Law or Ruling, as opposed to independent actors."

"Right. Plaintiffs enforce judgment through a court. This is basic enough as to need no explanation."

Separatist Peoples wrote:3. An employer may indemnify an employee for damages only when the employee’s actions were reckless or intentional.

"The Imperium fails to see how sheer incompetence, or simple maliciousness constitute grounds to shield an accomplice from restitution.

"You're misreading that entirely."

Bell looks over at Crawford, who takes the stand in a thin, reedy voice.

"In this case, an employer may indemnify, or seek compensation from, the employee where their tortious actions were intentional (assault, battery, trespass to chattels) or reckless (that they should have known their action was likely to cause harm). The employer may, if the employee bears the liquidated assets, be compensated for the loss from judgment. They may, in effect, sue their employee to recover damages.

"From a policy perspective, sir, this allows a victim to obtain compensation from an entity with a deeper pocket than the actual tortfeasor from the agency acting through that tortfeasor, while allowing the business to recoup some or all of their loss under specific circumstances. This expressly leaves out negligent harm, though, because negligence is something an employer should be guarding against through their employees. We cannot expect an employer to guard against, say, their employee battering a customer because that is an act that requires intent, and thus divorces the company from any agency."

Bell stares at the lawyer for a moment, lost.

"He mean the business can get the cash back from their employee if the employee meant it or should have known it would happen. Companies shouldn't be held responsible for something they can't control. I'll change it to be less jargony."

Crawford mulls that over for a minute, shrugs, and nods.

In any case, The Imperium has few substantive objections to this legislation at this time. We will await further investigation on the part of our personnel, and further discussion from assembled delegations before returning our official position on the matter."

"Fair enough, ambassador."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: Hmm... Rereading the proposal, I think that a link needs to be built to solve the principal agent issue in this case. While I agree that if an employee is acting on the behalf of the employer and causes some damages in line with the will of the employer he ought be liable, it is very probably impossible to create a meaningful and applicable distinction between the employer's wishes and the employee's actions, in the case of something like vague directives. Creation of an international standard on that level might not be suitable, but rather, such changes be devolved to more material institutions.

The lawyer leans into Bell, whispering a response. It appears to be a very quiet lecture, because this takes some time.

"Right. Apparently, the employer's wishes are irrelevant. Their employees, for the purposes of this interaction, are within the scope of employment, and so the business would be liable. This is no great burden to assume, because employees are still held to the general standards of duty for negligence, and the plaintiff would have to prove this. However, if the plaintiff is victorious, they are much more likely to receive adequate compensation from a business rather than one of their employees. A business can almost always spread the cost of their negligence more readily than a single individual. If a plaintiff sues a pizza delivery boy working for a pizza conglomerate, and the conglomerate evades liability, two people are screwed: the delivery boy who can never pay the judgment against him, and the victim, who will never get enough compensation for their harm. If the Conglomerate pays, everybody wins. Except the delivery boy, who likely gets fired, but that is a better result than paying a judgment."

"The syntax of this proposal makes it impossible to read. Please consider writing coherent clauses, Mr. Crawford."

Wallenburg wrote:"The syntax of this proposal makes it impossible to read. Please consider writing coherent clauses, Mr. Crawford."

Crawford leans over and whispers into Bell's ear.

"Well, its not my fault you write like a lawyer."

More whispering.

"That's stupid."

Whispering.

"Fine. Ambassador, how would you suggest structuring this?"

OOC: reads normal to me. Like a torts textbook. I even simplified it.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"The syntax of this proposal makes it impossible to read. Please consider writing coherent clauses, Mr. Crawford."

Crawford leans over and whispers into Bell's ear.

"Well, its not my fault you write like a lawyer."

More whispering.

"That's stupid."

Whispering.

"Fine. Ambassador, how would you suggest structuring this?"

"I would start by writing it according to the fundamental rules of grammar."

OOC: reads normal to me. Like a torts textbook. I even simplified it.

OOC: Here's how part of the proposal reads:
"The World Assembly, a plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single tortfeaser acting in the scope of employment at the time of an injury or incident may enjoin and hold liable the employer for the actions of the employee where the employee was acting in the scope of employment, existed an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business, and was the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff."

You changed it since my post to make it slightly more coherent, but it still doesn't make sense even with a total familiarity with the jargon. For instance, the World Assembly is not a plaintiff, and noting can "exist a relationship".

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Crawford leans over and whispers into Bell's ear.

"Well, its not my fault you write like a lawyer."

More whispering.

"That's stupid."

Whispering.

"Fine. Ambassador, how would you suggest structuring this?"

"I would start by writing it according to the fundamental rules of grammar."

OOC: reads normal to me. Like a torts textbook. I even simplified it.

OOC: Here's how part of the proposal reads:
"The World Assembly, a plaintiff in a noncriminal case against a single tortfeaser acting in the scope of employment at the time of an injury or incident may enjoin and hold liable the employer for the actions of the employee where the employee was acting in the scope of employment, existed an employer-employee relationship with the enjoined business, and was the proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff."

You changed it since my post to make it slightly more coherent, but it still doesn't make sense even with a total familiarity with the jargon. For instance, the World Assembly is not a plaintiff, and noting can "exist a relationship".

OOC: there ya go. Pointing specific things out helps.

So far we aren't even to the big questions, so this is good.

Steph reads the title of the draft and nods to herself; reading on, she raises one eyebrow... then, gradually, the other. She looks up at the podium, eyebrows jacked up to Full Skepticism.

"Benj- <ahem> - Ambassador Bell. Is your... uh... colleague... aware that World Assembly resolutions on tort reform reduce the ability of plaintiffs to extract damages? That in fact that's why it's called 'tort reform' in the first place? And classified as an Advancement of Industry, rather than a Social Justice measure? To the extent that the plaintiffs' rights you're establishing don't already exist, that belongs in another category, and to the extent that they do, this category would reduce them - yet I don't see where you're imposing restrictions on something that's gone too far, or some other expression of moral outrage at freebooters. You know, the usual for when companies decide the little people are getting too uppity."

Steph pauses for a moment, then turns and nods to the intern sitting behind her. The young man opens a cooler and gets out three bottles, one containing a white liquid, one black, and one clear. He scoops a glass full of ice and puts it on the S.L. desk. Steph hands him another glass, which he also fills with ice before pouring some liquid from each bottle into both glasses, filling them completely.

She sips her beverage, looks up at the young man, and nods approvingly.

"Not bad, Mr. LeBec," she says quietly. Each of them takes another sip. "Not bad."

Steph turns back toward the podium. "If you need to confer, Ambassador, I'm sure we can be quite patient. I think the audiovisual booth at the back of the chamber is empty if you need some privacy."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Benj- <ahem> - Ambassador Bell. Is your... uh... colleague... aware that World Assembly resolutions on tort reform reduce the ability of plaintiffs to extract damages? That in fact that's why it's called 'tort reform' in the first place? And classified as an Advancement of Industry, rather than a Social Justice measure? To the extent that the plaintiffs' rights you're establishing don't already exist, that belongs in another category, and to the extent that they do, this category would reduce them - yet I don't see where you're imposing restrictions on something that's gone too far, or some other expression of moral outrage at freebooters. You know, the usual for when companies decide the little people are getting too uppity."

Blackbourne reads over the WA's official guide to resolution categorization, and then stands to address the honourable Ambassador Zakalwe.

"The category of Tort Reform, according to my available knowledge, 'removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business', which this proposal does as far as I am aware. By allowing plaintiffs to seek compensation from corporations, it reduces barriers to anti-corporate litigation, does it not? I don't know if government interference is reduced, but it certainly fulfills one aspect of the tort reform category.

"I offer my support to the draft proposed by Ambassador Bell, and Herbert, Crawford, and Eschensteinbeckle, LLC."*

OOC
*yes this was a deliberate butchering of the name.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Benj- <ahem> - Ambassador Bell. Is your... uh... colleague... aware that World Assembly resolutions on tort reform reduce the ability of plaintiffs to extract damages? That in fact that's why it's called 'tort reform' in the first place? And classified as an Advancement of Industry, rather than a Social Justice measure? To the extent that the plaintiffs' rights you're establishing don't already exist, that belongs in another category, and to the extent that they do, this category would reduce them - yet I don't see where you're imposing restrictions on something that's gone too far, or some other expression of moral outrage at freebooters. You know, the usual for when companies decide the little people are getting too uppity."

Blackbourne reads over the WA's official guide to resolution categorization, and then stands to address the honourable Ambassador Zakalwe.

"The category of Tort Reform, according to my available knowledge, 'removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business', which this proposal does as far as I am aware. By allowing plaintiffs to seek compensation from corporations, it reduces barriers to anti-corporate litigation, does it not? I don't know if government interference is reduced, but it certainly fulfills one aspect of the tort reform category.

"I offer my support to the draft proposed by Ambassador Bell, and Herbert, Crawford, and Eschensteinbeckle, LLC."

"Thank you, Ambassador Blackbourne. I suggest you read a bit further in the document you've got there - I think you'll find my assessment was correct."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Tort Reform, here as IRL, makes it harder for plaintiffs, not easier.

OOC
Be that as it may, we have to operate on the game's description of the category. The game describes it as reducing barriers to anti-corporate litigation, real life tort reform increases barriers to anti-corporate litigation.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Tort Reform, here as IRL, makes it harder for plaintiffs, not easier.

OOC
Be that as it may, we have to operate on the game's description of the category. The game describes it as reducing barriers to anti-corporate litigation, real life tort reform increases barriers to anti-corporate litigation.

OOC: It wouldn't count as Advancement of Industry if it actually reduced those barriers, it would be Social Justice. Quote, "Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?", unquote. The description entry is misworded. "Reducing government interference in business" is correct and unequivocal - removing regulations that (in this case) allow companies to be sued more easily. If you actually look at the example resolution given, it makes it harder for injured people to sue first responders for messing up their first aid.

I have to imagine the "barriers" the category guide means are the barriers that protect plaintiffs from having to give up because, e.g., they just get totally outspent by the defendant's lawyers. The entry in the WA category guide should instead read:

Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from procedural aids to anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business.
Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?
Example - GA#106 – Assitance Givers Protection

OOC: moving forward, I'd like to stick to IC.

Expanding corporate tort litigation removes the need for business regulation as it incentivizes self-regulation. Thus a barrier reduction.

The alternative is SJ, which requires Welfare spending. This is clearly impossible. Tort Reform is the only possible category right now.

OOC: Someone's having fun with law school.

Wow, legal Jargon. The fastest way to alienate and bore an intelligent life form.

We are against this, purely due to our lack of intrest and excessive legal jargon.

Separatist Peoples wrote:4. Member states may limit non-compensatory damages in such a case only where their payment would be a manifest injustice.

Against.

Awarding punitive damages is already a questionable practice. You'd force it onto all member states?

Christian Democrats wrote:Awarding punitive damages is already a questionable practice. You'd force it onto all member states?

Not awarding punitive damages decreases disincentives towards questionable practices committed by corporations.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Awarding punitive damages is already a questionable practice. You'd force it onto all member states?

Not awarding punitive damages decreases disincentives towards questionable practices committed by corporations.

The purpose of tort law, the reason for its existence, is restitution; it's not punishment.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Wow, legal Jargon. The fastest way to alienate and bore an intelligent life form.

We are against this, purely due to our lack of intrest and excessive legal jargon.

"Kindly note the jargon, please."

Christian Democrats wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:4. Member states may limit non-compensatory damages in such a case only where their payment would be a manifest injustice.

Against.

Awarding punitive damages is already a questionable practice. You'd force it onto all member states?

"I see I had another transcription error. (OOC: this survived a ton of cut and paste and didn't get a lot of review before posting thanks to a limited schedule) "Limit" should be "apply" and manifest injustice needs a negative. The C.D.S.P. only applies punitive damages to negligence under extreme circumstances."

That's better.

I think award would be a better term than apply.

"It is greatly heartening to know that so many of my colleagues have such similar noncriminal court systems that they are able of offering such insightful advice." Bell said. Crawford leaned in, signaling Bell to stop.

"Stop what? The compliments?"

Nodding, and more whispering

"Compliments signal agreement? Crawford, you're a bloody monster."

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Wow, legal Jargon. The fastest way to alienate and bore an intelligent life form.

We are against this, purely due to our lack of intrest and excessive legal jargon.

"For a nation so advanced, your government certainly hasn't done a very good job of educating its diplomats in even the most basic of legal terms," Blackbourne retorts, "something that should be an absolute necessity when dealing with an organization that does nothing but pass laws."

"Crawford has, apparently, made a minor procedural addition in the second-to-last clause to ensure indemnification cases are appropriately heard. This was done without my knowledge. Crawford should damn well know better, since I am the ambassador here, and he is merely the advisor!"