Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
<SNIP. but it should not have been necessary to establish wrong-doing as part of getting that aid. Where does this insistence that it must be someone's fault come from? Sometimes __it happens! Without the confrontational nature of blame, some of these situations would be more quickly resolved; people could cooperate rather than ducking for cover to avoid blame.
|
Lawyer brain returning here...
There actually does have to be fault, legally. Without some sort of breach of duty to the women (i.e. legal fault), they were not entitled to any legal damages. Now, of course, the human brain cries out "but it was the decent thing to do!" But up until the point when they had a good idea that it was, indeed, their fault, how far should that decency have extended? Until it bankrupted them?
I think that this highlights a good point that others have made - that the book looks backwards
knowing who's legal fault it was the whole time. But at what time those actors actually starting to willingly or negligently act with disregard to the safety of the workers is another matter.