Re: Man Sentenced in radioactive Poisoning Case

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

Many thanx for your excellent response.  I'd like to add that one of the best
defenses against a civil suite is a strong policy against intentional misuse,
and the effective implementation of this policy.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

"Simmons, Charlie" wrote:

> Regarding the level of culpability of a licensee for criminal misuse of
> licensed material: notwithstanding the discussion of whether regulatory
> sanctions could or should be imposed on the licensee under such
> circumstances, licensees should not lose sight of their potential exposure
> to civil tort liability, even where an intervening criminal act results in
> personal injury.
> The existence of a federally (or Agreement State) licensed activity and
> adherence to the terms of that license do not necessarily insulate the
> licensee from civil tort liability, even where an intervening unlawful act
> results in harm.  Forget about intervening criminal misuse of legal
> products, the manufacturer is on the hook if a jury can be convinced that
> the product is "ultra hazardous," or "inherently dangerous," the licensee
> "knew or should have known" that such misuse might occur, and the licensee
> did not take appropriate action to prevent such misuse.
>
> Not a pretty comparison to some, but this principle is operative in current
> municipalities suits versus firearms manufacturers.
>
> Charles Simmons
> csimmons@kilstock.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html