Not sure what to make of this

[JNickel101]

If you get into a car accident with someone driving a Ford truck, and it was the other driver's fault, do you fault the person or do you go after Ford Motor Co?

Islander started a good point....we can keep it going. You go after the individual, pretty much regardless of the situation. You don't blame Haliburton for "empowering" the individual b/c of some contractual clause. They were simply trying to absolve themselves of blame given the conditions and circumstances of the situation. Since they are working in what is essentially a 3rd world country, who is going to do the investigating? Iraqi police?

I still say - yes, tragic situation - but she should have read the fine print. She said herself that she read it but "didn't understand it" - so can I spill McDonalds coffee on my lap and then claim "well, I read that it was 'Hot', but I didn't know what that meant, so I put it between my legs and kept driving".

A crime is a crime, but who's jurisdiction does this fall under? As was stated earlier, Haliburton isn't law enforcement....

 

[Brad M.]

You go after the individual, pretty much regardless of the situation.

Exactly, but the clause in the contract protects him. So she can't sue him, or press charges for assault. So, what does she do?

I understand her and her lawyer's point. Because of the clause, some of these employees understood that they could get away with things they would normally face charges for. It prevents legal action and mandates all disputes go to arbitration. So are they in the right for taking the stand that the clause creates a certain environment or mindset of "we're untouchable" over here? Or do all ethics just go out the window because a company can't be held responsible for the independent actions of its employees? This is definitely a complicated situation. From a fundamental standpoint, I believe she should have the right to press charges against her attackers. AND I believe Halliburton should be liable for collecting evidence in an assault and rape case, and then "losing" some of that crucial evidence. As has been stated, they are not law enforcement. But again, they're on foreign soil. Complicated indeed.

 

[Brad M.]

So should a university be sued if one student rapes another in the dorms?

No. But if you were raped in a dorm and tried to file charges and were told you could not press charges but had to go through arbitration, what would you do? Shrug your shoulders and say, "Aw shucks, guess I'll just let that one go?"

Maybe, just maybe, by taking the route she's taking, some judge somewhere will review the case and will allow her to bypass the clause somehow and press charges for rape and assault against her attackers. Makes sense in my mind. Doesn't mean Halliburton is liable, just taking a different line at getting justice.

 

[JNickel101]

I think that liberal-written article has skewed some of the facts....there is no way in hell there is a clause in there that says "you can commit any crime, and not be held liable, as long as an arbitrator says no law was broken."

Ridiculous....there has to be more to this story....

 

[Brad M.]

I think that liberal-written article has skewed some of the facts....there is no way in hell there is a clause in there that says "you can commit any crime, and not be held liable, as long as an arbitrator says no law was broken."

Ridiculous....there has to be more to this story....

Here's a better, more in-depth article for starters. I'd look for more, but pot roast and potatoes are calling.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1

 

[JNickel101]

Well, ok, so #1 misconstrued fact in the original article - it is KBR, which is NOT Haliburton....so it can't be Dick Cheney's fault....

#2...I feel terrible for the girl - I mean look at her, I'm sure she had guys all over her over there. Desert Princess anyone? Crazy that she'd even want to go work over there in the first place, given the conditions and circumstances.

#3...Texas might want to look at replacing Rep Poe. He doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with this. Seems very strange that, given the quick response to rescue her from her "prison", that the State Department wouldn't be doing anything about it now - even with the change in power. I find it incredibly hard to fathom how nothing is being done about this, even with Ms Clinton as Sec of State....

 

[Brad M.]

it is KBR, which is NOT Haliburton....so it can't be Dick Cheney's fault....

Halliburton was KBR's parent company at the time of the incident. They split in 2007.

"Halliburton's former subsidiary, KBR, is a major construction company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants. Halliburton announced on April 5, 2007 that it had finally broken ties with KBR, which had been its contracting, engineering and construction unit as a part of the company for 44 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

So yes, it's still Dick Cheney's fault.

 

[old_man]

From my feble legal training, I seem to remember something about the inability to abrigate a constitutional right via contract.

 

[ryguy32789]

- so can I spill McDonalds coffee on my lap and then claim "well, I read that it was 'Hot', but I didn't know what that meant, so I put it between my legs and kept driving".

If you mean what I think you mean by this comment, you should do a little research on that particular case. McDonalds knowingly was serving coffee that they knew was too hot for human consumption. McDonalds deserved the punishment it got.

Anyways, you cannot sign a contract signing away a right that is covered under a United States law. If the company has any criminal liability, the contract means nothing. I'm sure the contract clause was put in there to cover Halliburton in case they were 100% in the right and somebody tried to sue them for the actions of an employee.

It's just like waivers. I can sign a release of liability to do something like, say, ride a go kart. But, if the go kart track is guilty of negligence, that waiver is the equivalent of toilet paper. All a contract can show is that you knew about a danger, it does not cover negligence or malicious behavior by the company.

 

[JNickel101]

:roflmao: @ McDonalds comment.

Really? Please tell me you are joking. McDonalds wrote on the cup "place between legs while driving"....? Coffee is supposed to be hot. You really think a company would purposely say "let's make our coffee so damn hot that it will cause 3rd degree burns on people and cost us millions in lawsuits"...? Right...

That lady got what SHE deserved. Darwin's law attempted to prevent her from polluting the gene pool.

Back OT - I'm not sure that the contract attempted to absolve employees from US Laws - I think that, given the circumstances and location of where the contractors were working, Haliburton/KBR was simply trying to create a process for handling legal issues. I'm sure they didn't anticipate a gang rape like this - right now, they are kind of handcuffed by their own contract. The ball is in the court of the State and/or Justice Department now. As I said before, I'm shocked that nothing has been done by either - although this has turned into the "do nothing" Administration.

Great SNL skit on that a few weeks ago

 

[Brad M.]

although this has turned into the "do nothing" Administration.

What would give you that impression?

 

[ryguy32789]

:roflmao: @ McDonalds comment.

Really? Please tell me you are joking. McDonalds wrote on the cup "place between legs while driving"....? Coffee is supposed to be hot. You really think a company would purposely say "let's make our coffee so damn hot that it will cause 3rd degree burns on people and cost us millions in lawsuits"...? Right...

Actually, no, I wasn't kidding. Last semester I took a business law class and that case was one of the cases that the professor analyzed with us. Before taking the course I though the exact same way as you. Anybody who thinks that way hasn't read all the facts about the case. McDonalds had been the target of several dozen lawsuits up to that point, most cases involving people who recieved second and third degree burns in their mouths from drinking the coffee McDonalds was serving. It was revealed in the case that it was McDonalds corporate policy to serve their coffee at this temperature. Because, after losing several suits and not changing the temperature at which their coffee was served, the jury found them guilty of gross negligence . The woman who spilled the coffee on herself recieved third degree burns to her crotch within seconds of the coffee touching her skin. She had to undergo skin grafts and a long period of follow up treatments.
-
The case is Liebeck v. McDonald's, if you care to look up the facts. FYI, the woman offered to settle for the cost of her medical bills ($20k) and Mickey D's refused.
-
By the way, she was a passenger in the car, not the one driving.

 

[JNickel101]

McDonalds should require an IQ test before selling someone their coffee.

Facts or not, shit like this is the same reason they have to put warning tags on hair dryers telling people not to use them in the bathtub/shower. We've turned into a country full of idiots.

I will read thru the lawsuits, but I can guarantee you I won't change my tune. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Plain and simple. Wait for it to cool down before you take a drink and for damn sure don't put a paper/foam cup between your legs....