|
>>
|
234c26.jpg
Silver Bud
234c26
>>347240
>These are exactly the same studies which are used in our own world to make these determinations, and are undertaken by similar agencies. Only the timeline differs.
This actually doesn't work. To give an example, in our world, in order to prove that a company needs to pay tens of millions to, say, clean up a river, all you need to show is that they were discharging polychlorinated biphenyls into the river, that the concentration of said PCBs is above the legally mandated allowed levels in said river, and that no one else is discharging them; ergo, the company is breaking the law and have to pay. In Flora's world, not only do you have to prove all that, you also have to conduct health studies or environmental studies in the region fed by the river which show beyond reasonable doubt that specific detrimental effects have emerged since the discharge began, and then further prove beyond all reasonable doubt that said effects are a direct result of the PCB discharge rather than any of the other myriad of factors that the defense will drag in to confuse the issue, some of which might very well be substantial contributors to the same or similar problems.
It's comparatively easy to show that someone broke the letter of a law. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that they actually caused significant harm? That is much, much harder, and requires much more research and far more compelling evidence. Said research and evidence costs money.
>I just decided that corporate lawsuits of this nature are required to go to trial in no less than two years, and even delaying that long requires significant legal tap-dancing. so :p
They're required to go to trial in two years... or else wha
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
|