[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Man Sentenced in radioactive Poisoning Case
I am browsing quickly throught RADSAFE and this particular trend and really
I don't understand what the institution could have done and why someone
suggested to blame the licensee for that event.
A man, let's say he is a registered user, steal I-125 (poor choice of
biotechnology radioisotope, obvious lack of training in rad safety)and do
whatever OUTSIDE the licensee premises. What can the licensee do ? Install
portal detector, strip search one person out of 3, randomly ?
If the licensee provides proper locking policy to restrict access to
UNAUTHORIZED user, you did your job. Due diligence yes,paranoia, no.
Sorry If I bring this topic one week too late but if someone could privately
send me what is the buzz about this topic, I would like to understand. When
I see that, I always tell myself: I should have been a lawyer in the US...
Stephane Jean-Francois, Eng., CHP
Specialiste en radioprotection/Radiation Safety Specialist
Gestion des risques/Risk Management
Merck Frosst Canada & Co
TEL: 514.428.8695
FAX; 514.428.8541
email: stephane_jeanfrancois@merck.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Simmons, Charlie [mailto:CSimmons@kilstock.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 4:54 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: Man Sentenced in radioactive Poisoning Case
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