awarding your self another medal? you have not bested me because your premises are false.
the corporation acted and its the corporation that gets sued. if there were no LLC's there would be no one delivering high risk babies, doing high risk surgery or there would be no government because government is the biggest limited liability corporation known to man. Do you know anything about the federal tort claims act and the concept of sovereign immunity?
And just like I'd tell any other socialist, I'll tell you. Stop worrying so much, the free market will provide. High risk surgery and high risk deliveries might cost a little more, but they will get done. New methods that do not infringe on liberty will be adapted.
If your best argument is a pathetic, ends-justify-the-means socialism, you've already lost.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-20-11 at 08:07 PM.
real libertarians believe in personal responsibility. If you are president of a company and you order someone to harm another you will be both civilly and criminally liable. if someone does that without your knowledge why should your PERSONAL property be subject to suit
Corporate limited liability is described as follows:
This is quite different from sovereign tort immunity. See: Gray III v. Bell for a discussion of sovereign immunity:“shareholders are immune from personal liability for corporate debts and torts beyond the amount of their agreed investments in the corporation’s stock.”
1 COX & HAZEN Sec. 105
Now that you have been educated, TD, I will permit no more digressions into the comparison of sovereign tort immunity and corporate tort-liability shields. The two are not related, and I have proven it. The red herring is dispensed with.State and federal officials receive a judicially fashioned immunity for all discretionary acts arguably within the ambit of their authority. There are two basic forms of official immunity. The first, absolute [229 U.S.App.D.C. 182] immunity, bars a suit at the outset and frees the defendant official of any obligation to justify his actions. The second, qualified immunity,8 is in the nature of an affirmative defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known. The levels of protection afforded by these two forms of immunity, once sharply different, are no longer so distinct. Qualified immunity remains an "affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official," Harlow v. Fitzgerald, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2737, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), but subjective motivation is no longer relevant and the defense--now "defin[ed] ... essentially in objective terms," id., 102 S.Ct. at 2739--may appropriately be determined by the trial judge on summary judgment, id. On the other hand, under the functional analysis governing absolute immunity, see Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2911-16, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), "a limited factual inquiry may in some cases be necessary to determine in what role the challenged function was exercised," Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1215 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 3147, 69 L.Ed.2d 997 (1981), thus precluding on occasion disposition at the Rule 12 stage.
Official immunity is principally justified as a "shield against liability that will serve the public interest in the vigorous exercise of legitimate executive authority." Chagnon v. Bell, 642 F.2d 1248, 1256 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 3142, 69 L.Ed.2d 994 (1981).9 Additional reasons for according official immunity, less frequently articulated but no less important, include the need to minimize the deterrent effect of potential personal liability on those who otherwise might enter public office, the perceived drain on valuable official time devoted to defense of myriad suits, the inequity of exposing officials to vicarious liability for the acts of subordinates, the notion that government servants owe a duty to the public rather than to the individual, and the idea that official accountability is more appropriately enforced through the ballot and in criminal or removal [229 U.S.App.D.C. 183] proceedings than in private civil suits.10
712 F2d 490 Gray III v. Bell | OpenJurist
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-20-11 at 08:23 PM.