Comments on: Uphaar and Strict Liability

By: The Examined Life » Blog Archive » Response: Strict Liability and Silver Bullets

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:23:34 +0000

[...] Ritwik asks: How is punishment of the guilty ‘prevention’? The owner of some small XYZ theatre may take a risk with safety standards, assuming that due to the low probability of a fire hazard, the chances that a mishap ever happens with his theatre are minimal (even though they are much greater than the chances that a fire may be set off at some other theatre that willingly follows saftey norms). If a mishap now happens, what exactly have we prevented? [second paragraph redacted as it is already answered.] [...]

By: The Examined Life » Blog Archive » Response: Uphaar and Strict Liability

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:45:38 +0000

[...] asks O Chief [...]

By: HiAgain

HiAgain — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:56:02 +0000

Theoretically it works. Won’t work in real life. In real life a mixture of Strict Liability, Government regulation and liability for the inspectors too would work better.

Proponents of strict liability (read as more deregulation) may take a look at the subprime mess to get an idea of what happens when deregulation happens, the industry is allowed to police itself and the regulators come from the same industry.

By: swami

swami — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:52:24 +0000

… believed … instead of … believe … in the first para, right?

Other than that, I am tempted to agree with your argument… But I am not fully convinced yet…

By: Ravikiran Rao

Ravikiran Rao — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:26:26 +0000

Ritwik, Gaurav, everyone else,
Other than the post above, responses to everything else will come on Monday – I am off on vacation.

By: The Examined Life » Blog Archive » Civil and Criminal Liability

The Examined Life » Blog Archive » Civil and Criminal Liability — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:22:15 +0000

[...] night, I lay awake thinking about this post. I decided that I had to rush to clarify whether I was talking about civil or criminal [...]

By: Ritwik Priya

Ritwik Priya — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:04:04 +0000

Ravi,

How is punishment of the guilty ‘prevention’? The owner of some small XYZ theatre may take a risk with safety standards, assuming that due to the low probability of a fire hazard, the chances that a mishap ever happens with his theatre are minimal (even though they are much greater than the chances that a fire may be set off at some other theatre that willingly follows saftey norms). If a mishap now happens, what exactly have we prevented?

Second, from a legal standpoint, removing the need to prove mens rea is a significant step, rarely taken for serious criminal offences like murder. Strict liability opens up the theatre owners to criminal prosecution for murder if someone dies, even in the case of a genuinely accidental fire.

By: Hawkeye

Hawkeye — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:45:29 +0000

Gaurav,

Upahar cinema is a specific example of ‘fire safety’. it does not cover all of ‘fire safety’. So by ‘road safety’ what do you mean?

is it the ‘road safety’ scenario where you are renting your vehicle out for other’s to use and where your personal safety is not at stake.

(or)

is it a ‘road safety’ scenario when you yourself are driving and your safety is also at stake.

By: Gaurav

Gaurav — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:55:21 +0000

O Chief Heretic,

If I were to substitute “road safety” in place of “fire safety” in post of yores, would I be making a mistake ? If yes, then what is the mistake ? If no, does it mean that there is no requirement of road safety regulations.

By: Strict Liability for Public Safety | DesiPundit

Strict Liability for Public Safety | DesiPundit — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:33:22 +0000

[...] safety issues with more regulation. In the context of Uphaar Cinema tragedy, Ravikiran explains why strict liability might in fact be a better solution to achieving similar [...]