Lawrence Lessig explains how the law operates in finding fault:
"[R]esponsibility" is placed upon the person in the best, or cheapest, position to avoid a foreseeable harm.
In just a few paragraphs, the professor lays out a scheme used in American courts with a good example (and goes on to use it on the context of Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000). That's very interesting to me. It's not a solution that's obvious a priori, and because of that, you can make an awful lot of misleading statements about civil law to a non-legal professional audience.
I'm going to think about this some and see how it applies to the tort-reform movement.
Posted by Greg at February 11, 2004 5:01 PM
Very interesting ideas. But I'm not sure his comparison is all that valid. I think everyone can reach the common agreement that 30 dead girlscouts is a horrible tragedy. Unfortunately (and rather foolishly), not every one considers Bush's presidency a tragedy.
All right-thinking people (is that a malapropism?) consider Junior's presidency a tragedy. Or at least a travesty. Apart from Bush himself, Nader may have made the largest individual contribution to Bush's election... but I wouldn't say he's responsible for it. Unlike the accident in Lessig's analogy, many people intentionally set out to make Bush president. With malice aforethought, as it were. I blame them.