Wednesday, March 11, 1998

Liability cap fallacy

The tobacco executives are pretty clever, they are.

After seeing Congress' obvious distaste for giving tobacco companies immunity for their past deceit and deadly cover-ups, the industry has shifted gears. All it wants now is annual liability caps. That is, limit their liability to, say, $8 billion per year no matter how many lawsuits are won.

The fallacy is that any kind of cap is, in effect, immunity with a front-end payment. All they need do is build the $8 billion into their product price and continue doing business as usual. After paying their yearly stipend, they retain guaranteed profits thereafter.

With the current legal system there is the uncertainty of potential liability that keeps the industry concerned about product safety. With the protection of caps, the industry could continue addicting kids - even run wild with new experimental chemicals.

Worse, once the cap is reached, it would keep many people from suing because lawyers won't take the suits. This eliminates people's rights to justice and puts Big Tobacco back into the driver's seat.

Offering the tobacco industry any form of immunity or caps would set a dangerous precedent. Why should this industry be singled out to get this kind of special protection against product defect?

Why not then the asbestos industry, breast implants, medicines, medical equipment or, as Drs. Koop and Kessler have pointed out, automobiles with exploding gas tanks?

CHARLES GIBSON

Abilene

Via e-mail

County priorities

I've just finished reading the news article about the county commissioners prioritizing the additional Expo Center needs. It stated that the county was able to include many of the items on the improvement "wish list" by planning to use inmate labor on a number of the projects.

Would it be possible to use inmate labor on some of the roads in south Taylor County? They need work, and it doesn't appear that it will get done any other way.

Some time ago, our current county commissioner was presented a petition requesting a low-water crossing be installed at Jim Ned Creek on C.R. 145. We're still waiting on it. There is also a 310-of-a-mile section of road on C.R. 163 that is impassable when it rains - which this year seems to be most of the time.

There may not be the amount of traffic on these roads that some streets in Abilene experience, but just like those streets, these roads are used to get people to work and home.

And while paving all the county roads would be nice, we'd settle for passable right now.

While I don't currently live in Taylor County, I am a land owner, taxpayer and driver on many of the roads in south Taylor County, especially those around Shep, Moro and Lawn. Because I can't vote in Taylor County, I have even less representation than those of you voting.

S.R. CARROLL

Flower Mound

Via e-mail