EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

charliew charliew at hal-pc.org
Sun Nov 10 00:26:50 EST 1996


In article <01bbce86$768b49c0$89d0d6cc at masher>,
   "Mike Asher" <masher at tusc.net> wrote:
>Joseph Zorzin <redoak at vgernet.net> wrote:
>> I have some appreciation for both sides of this case as 
I'm both a
>> practicing forester and I'm also proud to call myself an
>> environmentalist.
>> 
>> But if the true damage was only $20,000 then why the 
&#@*% did the court
>> award the company over a million bucks?
>
>It's called punitive damages, and they are often awarded in 
cases of
>intentional malice.  You don't seem to have a problem with 
punitive damages
>against corporations.
>

This is a funny coincidence, isn't it.  When the "evil" 
corporations do something wrong, we should levy a huge 
penalty on them.  Yet, when the "good" environmentalists do 
something wrong, we should give them the benefit of the 
doubt, because their intentions were good!  Well ... the 
road to hell was paved with good intentions.  What's good 
for the goose is good for the gander.  Turnabout is fair 
play.  An ounce of prevention ...  what the heck!  I was on 
a cliche roll, and I couldn't help myself.

Have a nice day.



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list