Black Unicorn writes:
On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Scott Brickner wrote:
I'd argue that I'm holding everyone to the same standard: either know the safe ways of handling viruses and follow them, or don't handle them at all.
Now you have to get into the question of who is a trained virus handler. This is a subjective analysis. The court is going to have to do this case by case. And below in your message its clear you do not hold everyone to the same standard. The virus/CPR expert is held to a different standard in your example. It is the same standard in that you punish everyone if they "Do something stupid." But "stupid" is different for each person.
I don't agree with this. I expect everyone who handles viruses to know what they're doing and take precautions. By handling the virus at all you are effectively claiming such expertise, as I see it. The court needn't consider formal training at all. A "reasonable person" ought to know if his training is adequate, after all. The court may choose to examine this claim, and find it to be in error, thus making the handling of the virus reckless. If the court accepts the claim, then it should examine the actual procedures. If the procedures are found wanting, there is negligence (though I suspect my "non-legalese" usage of these terms has them reversed --- negligence is a worse fault, in my estimation: you had the knowledge but failed to act in accordance with it; recklessness means you acted without fully appreciating the consequences, and thus didn't know better.)
You seem to imply that I'd hold the untrained virus writer harmless. No way. He's reckless and *should* be liable.
I indicated only that the standards you had for trained and untrained virus writers were different.
I guess "trained" may have been inappropriate. How about "knowledgable"?
When one has training, it's no longer reckless to simply handle (or write) the virus, but disregarding safe procedures is negligent.
See my above position. Three standards. One for those with training, one for those without and some kind of standard for determining what is 'enough' training. Given the traditional institutional costs of courts, particularly their 'catch up' chase with technology, I don't think I'd want courts doing these calculations.
Formal training implies that one is knowledgable, but such knowledge may be acquired without formal training (or new fields would never come about). Certain actions are clearly acceptable for knowledgable people but are dangerous for those without the knowledge --- handling a biological virus is one of them. The court need to nothing more than determine whether the precautions were adequate.
It seems to me that the "reasonable person" isn't the real issue there. Someone with training ought to be expected to do the "right" thing. If you're trained to administer CPR, and you do it *wrong*, you shouldn't be absolved of liability -- you're negligent.
But the other argument goes that we have to give the people who know what they are doing more leeway because they will be judged by people who don't know about the subject and because if we want to encourage good samaritans the way to do it is not by increasing their liability. (You effectively do increase their liability above by implying that you would like to impose a stricter negligence standard for trained CPR types).
I'm not sure I'm imposing stricter negligence on trained CPR types, see my comments below. What I *am* doing is imposing a stricter recklessness standard on untrained types.
Keep in mind that doing the "wrong" thing isn't always negligence either. Doing the wrong thing because you were careless, that's negligence.
Doing the wrong thing willfully is reckless or even malicious.
Also note that you can be negligent without harming anyone.
But is it actionable? Doesn't the law have a sort of "no harm, no foul" interpretation? According to Holmes, if I believe that an enemy is trying to kill me, and I arrange things so that when he thinks he's shooting me, he's really shooting a mannekin, he has *not* committed attempted murder. Similarly, if a pickpocket puts his hand in my pocket, but there's nothing there, he hasn't committed a crime.
It could be argued that it's folly to impose a lower standard on the CPR 'idiot' and thus encourage him to run out and do CPR. One can imagine a scene where the CPR trained fellow pulls an idiot out of the crowd and gives instructions for the idiot to preform the CPR so as to take advantage of both his increased knowledge and the idiot's limited liability (reasonable person standard, not reasonable CPR expert standard).
The expert shouldn't get reduced liability for this. The 'idiot' is effectively a tool in the expert's hands. Too, the 'idiot' has no way of assuring himself that the supposed expert is, in fact, qualified. It's no more appropriate for him to administer CPR under the guidance of a stranger than to do it on his own judgement.
If you don't know anything about CPR (except what you've seen on "Baywatch"), then we're back to what a "reasonable person" should do.
That probably includes not trying to preform CPR... no?
Dunno. Is it "reasonable" for an untrained person to attempt CPR? That's for a court to decide.
If you're trained and you do it right, but the person is still injured by your actions, limiting your liability is society's way of encouraging you to use your training for the common good.
This begins to look like the partial abortion debate, where the argument goes something like this:
Yes, it's criminal to preform the procedure, but you can absolve yourself after the fact by showing us (medical morons) that the mother's life was in danger.
That's not encouraging in the least to doctors. (Which in the abortion example, is precisely the point).
The trick is in your concept of "and you do it right." That's a subjective analysis.
Actually, I'd say the error in this abortion argument is that there's a presumption of guilt, which runs counter to a basic tenet of common law. In the virus case, I'd expect the plaintiff/prosecutor to prove that the precautions were inadequate. Not merely that they were ineffective in the specific case, but that a "reasonable person" would have known the activity to be dangerous without adequate precautions, and that a "resonable expert" would have considered the precautions taken inadequate. Without such proof, the defendant need only indicate what precautions were taken, and claim that they are adequate.
In my mind, the difference between the objective standard and the subjective one marks the difference between recklessness and negligence. If an objective "reasonable person" wouldn't do it, it's reckless. If a subjective "reasonable person" wouldn't, it's negligent.
This makes it REALLY tough. Reckless usually means extensive punative damages are on the way. Simple negligence doesn't always trigger them. By using these terms on the same facts the idiot gets simple negligence, the expert gets expanded liability and potential punative damages.
I see it the other way around. The "objective" reasonable standard says "don't handle the virus unless you're and expert". Handling the virus and being found incompetent to do so (the idiot case) means you're reckless and subject to those punitive damages. Being found competent to handle them and found not to have taken adequate steps leaves you at least negligent, but reckless if it wasn't accidental. Competent with adequate precautions means you weren't even negligent.
Because the expert will be at significant disadvantage at trial (if he's an expert, if he knew what he was doing, why did the victim get hurt) what you've done is moved closer to the realm of strict liability for all experts. (Strict liability simply eliminates the negligence calculation. If you were doing the activity, (CPR) and someone got hurt, you're liable. Period. No calculation of fault). What this system does is create something like a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the expert. That starts to look like strict liability.
Precautions don't necessarily eliminate danger, they simply reduce it to acceptable levels. Licensed drivers are, in some sense, driving experts. Why do they get in accidents? Often because of liability, but often there are merely unpredictable circumstances --- junk in the road, sudden ice storms, etc. The burden of proving negligence must remain with the one claiming injury.
Perhaps these aren't the "legalese" usages of the terms, but it seems reasonable to me.
It creates systemic problems though. (Like the burden of overcoming the assumption that the expert must have erred).
It's a faulty assumption, and a common law court ought to stick to its philosophical origins --- innocent until proven guilty.