3 ms·

I wonder what the author's view is about the asbestos litigation itself? Do they believe that it was justified? If they don't, then there is the author's big p

I wonder what the author's view is about the asbestos litigation itself? Do they believe that it was justified? If they don't, then there is the author's big problem, and the example doesn't even need to touch on the concept of limited liability. It all becomes a problem of out of control lawsuits. But if the author believes that the lawsuits were justified, why then are they happy about limited liability? It results in companies not paying out the full damages due. So the people harmed by asbestos have lost out. Is that something we really should be glad about?

Guvante 13y ago
> If they don't, then there is the author's big problem I don't think that is a valid simplification. He is allowed to disagree with the lawsuit but also point out the damage it caused. If you want to call it a strawman that is fine, but it isn't otherwise a flawed argument. > It results in companies not paying out the full damages due What other option is there? Unless weird things happened the entirety of the capital invested in the company was consumed. In theory we could build a way to say "you are liable for your investment plus X%" but how do you measure X%? And without some kind of limit the current capital investment strategy becomes difficult to maintain.