Question 1.
To begin with, the buffalo creek disaster was out of negligence of the Pittston Company and not an act of God as was claimed by Pittston company. This is because the company was aware that the drainage system of the third dam required proper construction (Cowan 1). Secondly, it is sad to note that the compensation previously offered by Pittston company was meagre compared to the loss undergone by the survivors. Thirdly, Pittston company exhibits unethical conduct when it tries to thwart Stern’s efforts to make sure the survivors receive justice (Cowan 2). Moreover, the disaster survivors show their belief in the legal system when they take Pittston company to court for alleged negligence that resulted to loss of lives and property. …show more content…
Stern was ethical. He involved himself in deep investigation and found out that the floods occurred due to negligence of Pittston company. He found out that company did not build an effective drainage system for the dam (Dalton 56). Also, he set to find out the impact of the floods on the survivors by interviewing them. He goes ahead to ensure the survivors receive justice by getting fair compensation from the defendant considering psychological trauma they went through.
Judge K.K Hall’s actions are also seen to be ethical. In many ways, Pittston company had tried stop the efforts of the plaintiffs’ lawyer. By the evidence brought by Stern and the plaintiffs, judge Hall also established that the floods were due to negligence of Pittston company (Dalton 61). He made rulings in favor of the plaintiffs based on the evidences. His aim was to ensure the plaintiffs got justice. It is clear that Pittston company’s conduct is unethical. After the floods, the company issued statements that the floods were out of an act of God. It tries to escape liability after failed responsibility in a bid to rescue its image in the public. Locals had warned the company about the looming danger but the company ignored their concerns (Cowan 67). This amounts to negligence that causes great harm to people when floods finally come.
Question
To begin with, the buffalo creek disaster was out of negligence of the Pittston Company and not an act of God as was claimed by Pittston company. This is because the company was aware that the drainage system of the third dam required proper construction (Cowan 1). Secondly, it is sad to note that the compensation previously offered by Pittston company was meagre compared to the loss undergone by the survivors. Thirdly, Pittston company exhibits unethical conduct when it tries to thwart Stern’s efforts to make sure the survivors receive justice (Cowan 2). Moreover, the disaster survivors show their belief in the legal system when they take Pittston company to court for alleged negligence that resulted to loss of lives and property. …show more content…
Stern was ethical. He involved himself in deep investigation and found out that the floods occurred due to negligence of Pittston company. He found out that company did not build an effective drainage system for the dam (Dalton 56). Also, he set to find out the impact of the floods on the survivors by interviewing them. He goes ahead to ensure the survivors receive justice by getting fair compensation from the defendant considering psychological trauma they went through.
Judge K.K Hall’s actions are also seen to be ethical. In many ways, Pittston company had tried stop the efforts of the plaintiffs’ lawyer. By the evidence brought by Stern and the plaintiffs, judge Hall also established that the floods were due to negligence of Pittston company (Dalton 61). He made rulings in favor of the plaintiffs based on the evidences. His aim was to ensure the plaintiffs got justice. It is clear that Pittston company’s conduct is unethical. After the floods, the company issued statements that the floods were out of an act of God. It tries to escape liability after failed responsibility in a bid to rescue its image in the public. Locals had warned the company about the looming danger but the company ignored their concerns (Cowan 67). This amounts to negligence that causes great harm to people when floods finally come.
Question