At 05:24 PM 12/26/96 -0500, Brian Davis wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 12:31 AM 12/26/96 -0500, Brian Davis wrote:
I would argue that if the bank can be forced to help the government enforce the law, the bank should also become liable for damage done as a consequence of complying with such requirements. While it's a different area, within the last few years a decision was made (SC?) that companies which had made Agent Orange for the US Government during Vietnam can be held liable (without recourse against the government, apparently) for the damages
caused
ex-servicemen for selling dioxin-tained Agent Orange to the government, but manufactured totally according to government specifications. (and used only outside the US, under government direction, by government agents, in an entirely different legal jurisdiction, to boot!) Seemingly, doing something at the behest of government does not immunize one.
The fact that a bank complied with a federal regulation governing the bank is not similar to a business selling a defective product.
Wrong. They're not _identical_, but on the other hand it is indeed similar in many respects. Remember, "complying with a federal regulation" is actually a misleading statement: If _any_ leeway is allowed in how to "comply," the organization involved is, presumably, liable for the exercise of that freedom. Or, at least, they should be if the rules were followed. While admittedly this is an off-the-wall example, if a bank reported these transactions by sending them by car driven by a license-free 16-year old, and he lost control and killed a dozen people in a crowd, the fact that the bank "was complying with a federal regulation" wouldn't save them from hefty liability. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com