Re: regulations

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

Marti Brown stated:

>  The only way to protect your employer from liability is to make sure that
> you are in compliance and have the documents necessary to prove it.  I hate
> to say it - but the legal system we have today makes it too easy for people
> to sue our employers  - and win. I cite for example the ex-NRC inspector
> who sued a California utility since she contracted a rare form of cancer.
> Her excuse was she was not aware of the hazards. That is bunk. She has a
> masters in HP from University of Florida, and she had passed the NRC
> resident inspector training requirements. I didn't graduate from Florida,
> but I would assume that they discuss radiation biology and risks in their
> training. I have been through resident inspector training - and I know the
> NRC does....
> 
> It is people like her that have made "protect the company from liability"
> part of the safety professional's responsibility.

I agree that is is the employee's accountability to protect their 
employer from liability. However, meeting regulatory compliance and 
procedural compliance in no way protects the employer's exposure 
(no pun intended) to litigation. Meeting the regulations does help, 
however, the NRC will also tell you that meeting the regulations in 
no way assumes that you can not be held liable in a court of law. A 
jury may decide for the plantiff for many reasons, none of which have 
anything to do with regulatory compliance.

I am not saying that we shouldn't do what is reasonable and prusdent 
to met regulatory requirements. I am only suggesting that meeting 
them doesn't mitigate potential litigation. It only is a factor which 
"might" benefit you when you are in litigation.

Sandy Perle
Director, Technical Operations
ICN Dosimetry Division
Office: (800) 548-5100 Ext. 2306 
Fax: (714) 668-3149

E-Mail: sandyfl@ix.netcom.com    

Personal Homepages:

http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205