• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Multinational corporations are rapidly introducing hazardous technological activities into less-developed nations. There is considerable evidence that this feature of global commerce poses risks to health, safety and natural resources, and most immediately endangers the workers involved. The less-developed nations hosting these activities are vulnerable to exploitation of their human resources because they lack the safeguards, expertise, and public pressures that prevent harms to workers in developed nations. This paper presents an evaluation of approaches taken by international and industrial organizations to address workplace hazards by soft law, hard law, codes of conduct, and voluntary self-regulation. Finding that these approaches have repeatedly failed, a new approach is presented for the purpose of assuring that the transfer of technology will be accompanied by the transference of practices for using it safely. The key features of this approach are then considered: defining a standard of care which aims to provide equivalent treatment of worker health and safety across all nations, irrespective of their level of development, and establishing contractual relationships between multinational companies and host countries as a feasible means of implementing the standard and achieving equivalent treatment.

Multinational corporations, Less-developed nations, Workplace safety and health, Industry codes of conduct, International organizations, Technology transfer

Abstract:
Biotechnological research on the deadliest pathogens has rapidly grown into a vast enterprise in the United States. With over $50 billion from federal agencies, thousands of projects are conducted at hundreds of university laboratories and other facilities in a national effort to gain the knowledge and methods for preventing the natural occurrence of pathogenic disease and protecting against bioterrorism. This paper describes this enterprise, defines several risk scenarios unrelated to terrorism which threaten lab workers and the public with lethal and contagious pathogenic disease, and evaluates the official policy framework for decision-making with regard to preventing and responding to the risk scenarios. It finds that the framework emphasizes physical security and secrecy to prevent terrorist exploitation of the enterprise, but fails to sufficiently address prevention of lab mishaps, accidental releases, and other incidents during the routine conduct of research which would expose workers and the public to the lethal pathogens. Nor does the framework effectively provide for the emergency response measures needed to prevent an accidental release of the more highly contagious pathogens from spiraling into a local or larger scale disease epidemic. These findings, supported by the growing number of near misses and small-scale incidents and lawsuits, point to major weaknesses in federal oversight and regulation, official disregard for siting criteria, inadequate self-regulation and management of lab safety practices, breakdowns in reporting systems, and obstacles to organizational learning and emergency response created by secrecy and security policies. Recommendations are made regarding these inadequacies of the federal framework and urge application of lessons learned from safety science experience with other hazardous technologies where increasing attention is being given to safety culture initiatives.

Accidental release, Biosafety, Biotechnology, Bioterrorism, Disease epidemic, Emergency response, Environmental assessment, Incident reporting, Infectious disease, Laboratory safety, Near miss, Organizational learning, Pathogens, Public safety, Risk scenarios, Safety culture & management, Siting

Abstract:
Due to the difficulties of proving causation in most toxic tort suits, plaintiffs and defendants in toxic tort litigation have begun to develop and use scientifically sophisticated risk assessments as evidence in proving or disproving causation. This use has led to two new trends in tort liability. First, there is the trend in which risk assessment is used by plaintiffs to buttress claims for future injury or increased risk. Second, there is the trend in which risk assessment is used by defendants to establish that other factors caused, in whole or in part, plaintiffs’ injuries.

This article evaluates these two recent trends by describing and evaluating the applicable traditional legal doctrine, the recent case law establishing the trend, the manner in which risk assessment is used as evidence in the recent cases, the academic commentary on the trend, and the likely future development of the trend. After this evaluation, the article concludes that although use of risk assessment by plaintiffs to establish increased risk and by defendants to prove alternative causation is relatively recent, it has already had a substantial effect on tort liability and will continue such impact in the future, and therefore are of substantial risk to all possibly parties in such toxic tort litigation.

Toxic Tort Litigation, Risk Assessment Evidence, Causation

Abstract:
Developed nations encourage corporate development of new products and industrial processes, and rely on various social controls to assure that these technological advances do not pose unreasonable risks to health, safety, property, and the environment. The social controls, in the form of government regulation, private self-regulation, market forces, and tort liability doctrines, are expected to be responsive to risk and harm. Thus, the social controls are expected to have preventive and corrective functions: to shape or influence the design and preparation of new products and processes so they will not be harmful when they are put to their intended use; and if harmful after being put to use, to bring about corrective changes in design or modes of use in order to reduce residual risks and prevent recurrence of the harms.

Among the social controls in the U.S.A. and European Union, tort liability has gained prominence for several reasons. It can be applied to the broadest range of harm-causing products and processes. It can be quickly activated when new evidence emerges that a particular advance is injurious. It can be the most sudden and severe social control, capable of quickly causing economic loss for a company whose product or process is found to be harmful. And it is feared by companies and therefore has a preventive function in that it deters companies from disregarding risks when designing new products and processes.

This chapter focuses on tort liability in the U.S.A. and European Union domains, its doctrines of fault-based liability and strict liability, and their relevance to product and process design. It also discusses new environmental liability laws and other recent developments which have design implications. Finally, it discusses company decision-making on product and process design, a context in which the deterrent effect of tort liability, and many competing factors, are considered.