namelesstavern.net

SEATTLE - The parents of a 23-year-old activist killed while trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home is suing Caterpillar Inc., the company that made the bulldozer that ran over her.

The federal lawsuit, which lawyers said would be filed here Tuesday, alleges that Caterpillar violated international and state law by providing specially designed bulldozers to Israeli Defense Forces that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger people.

Rachel Corrie, a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, was standing in front of a home in a refugee camp in Rafah, near the Egyptian border, in March of 2003 when a bulldozer plowed over her.

"The brutal death of my daughter should never have happened," Corrie's mother, Cindy Corrie, said in a statement released by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a law firm handling the case. "We believe Caterpillar and the (Israeli Defense Forces) must be held accountable for their role in the attack."

Caterpillar spokeswoman Linda Fairbanks said the company had no comment on the lawsuit.

However, the company released a general statement Tuesday that said: "Caterpillar shares the world's concern over unrest in the Middle East and we certainly have compassion for all those affected by political strife.

"However, more than 2 million Caterpillar machines and engines are at work in virtually every region of the world each day. We have neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of that equipment."

The statement did not refer to the lawsuit.

The Corries have filed separate claims in Israel against the state of Israel, the Israeli Defense Ministry and the Israeli Defense Forces.

The Israeli military classified Corrie's death as an accident.

Here we go again...

OMG THE FAD SPREADS! I SPILLED COFFEE ON MY CROTCH NOW I SUE BECAUSE I AM RETARDED AND THOUGHT THE COFFEE WASNT GOING TO BE HOT!!!!!!!OMG1~

Whatever happened to tort reform?

That's like sueing Ford Motor Company because you were hit by a drunk driver who was behind the wheel of a Mustang.

Rachel Corrie was stupid. She jumped in front of a bulldozer and got killed.

She is to blame for her own death, end of story. With parents like this I can see how she got so dumb.

Caterpilllar should use their bulldozer to plow over Center for Constitutional Rights law office.

Diekan wrote:That's like sueing Ford Motor Company because you were hit by a drunk driver who was behind the wheel of a Mustang.

agree 100%

or maybe suing smith and wesson cause handgun was used in a suicide

Diekan wrote:That's like sueing Ford Motor Company because you were hit by a drunk driver who was behind the wheel of a Mustang.

This happened in New York. Try to lease a car in New York and see what happens.

http://www.nysada.com/

Here's a link to rediculous auto lawsuits around the country. It may piss you off so be forewarned.


http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/cat_autos.html

This one is debatable:

Jim Butler wins $105M verdict in Chrysler seat litigation
Another example of how personal injury attorneys and the "Center for Auto Safety" actually care very little about auto safety: In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger's head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs' attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger -- never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn't absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives, a number that will almost certainly be reduced, but the entire verdict is inappropriate. "It is unfairly punishing DaimlerChrysler for a reasonable engineering decision that resulted in a product that met all federal standards," DaimlerChrysler spokesman Jason Vines said. (Rob Johnson, "Jury awards $105.5 M in baby's death", The Tennesseean, Nov. 24; Matt Gouras, AP, Nov. 24; "DaimlerChrysler Is Told to Pay $98 Mln in Van Crash", Bloomberg, Nov. 23; Sheila Burke, "Chrysler being sued over baby's van death", The Tennesseean, Nov. 4). More coverage: Dec. 21.

Just because 70 miles an hour is twice the speed limit where he was, if he were on the highway in CT you wouldn't even get a ticket for 70 because the speed limit is 65. Bottom line, a 70 mile an hour impact should not prompt that seat to drop back like that.

Martrae wrote:Rachel Corrie was stupid. She jumped in front of a bulldozer and got killed.

She is to blame for her own death, end of story. With parents like this I can see how she got so dumb.

And them niggers what got shot by the Klan deserved it too for being uppity and tryin' to vote, eh? Dumb niggers!

--R.

Rust... don't be an idiot.

Too late.

Tell me how jumping in front of a bulldozer is remotely comparable to trying to vote?

<img src="http://inhonor.net/pictures/Rachel%20Corrie%20burning%20us%20flag.jpg">

Im just mad the parents were not standing in front of it too.

Martrae wrote:Too late.

Tell me how jumping in front of a bulldozer is remotely comparable to trying to vote?

We could start by asking: why was she in front of the bulldozer?

--R.

Give them a break, their daughter is dead.

Why would you wish death on anyone? Anyone can sue anyone they want.

Godamn you people are fucking horrible.

She was in front of the dozer because she thought she was invincible...she was wrong.

Ginzburgh wrote:Give them a break, their daughter is dead.

Why would you wish death on anyone? Anyone can sue anyone they want.

Godamn you people are fucking horrible.

While the idea of suing Caterpillar seems absurd on its face, I gather the lawsuit claims:

i) Caterpillar made and sold armored bulldozers to Israel, knowing they would be used to demolish buildings; and that
ii) It is illegal under Washington state, US federal or relevant international law to make such bulldozers for such use.

I doubt (i) is arguable, everyone knows the Israelis regularly bulldoze civilian houses as a form of collective punishment as well as to clear land for military or civilian use.

I'd have to see some pretty clear law supporting (ii) before I'd think they had a case.

I also look with interest to see the actual lawsuit. The family is also, I understand, suing in Israel on wrongful death grounds.

The reasoning is pretty clear - if I made something and sold it to you *knowing* you would likely use it for an illegal purpose, am I liable for this action? The lawsuit will have to show the Israeli acts were somehow illegal in Washington state, and that Caterpillar knowingly sold the bulldozers to Israel anyhow.

I would expect people had been protesting Caterpillar's sale of armored bulldozers to Israel for some time, and if so it should be relatively simple to prove.

If you want a truly extreme example - say an American company, let's say DuPont, had sold cyanide pellets to the Nazis in 1944, shipping it via Portugal or something, even when they knew the Germans were using it to kill Jews in gas chambers, and selling the chemicals to the Nazis was clearly illegal (under the Trading With The Enemy Act). And further let's say when the camps were captured, canisters of DuPont cyanide pellets were found scattered about the gas chambers and crematoria. Do you think family members of those killed by cyanide gassing in the camps would have a good basis for a lawsuit against DuPont?

In this case, we have an American company selling an item to the Israeli army that was used to kill someone (accidentally or not). If the family can show that the company knew it was likely to be used in such a way as to pose a substantial likelihood as to injure or kill someone, and that such use was illegal under US law, or that the sale itself for such use was illegal under US law, then I think Caterpillar could be argued to have failed to exercise due care.

But until we see the lawsuit, it's all speculation.

--R.

She was in front of the dozer because she thought she was invincible...she was wrong.

Well...thanks for that insight. It was truly informative.

yw

Still waiting for how it compares to voting....

And if my daughter said, "dad, I want to go to help poor people in third world countrys that don't have the things that we normally take for granted" she would have my blessing and I'd be a proud parent.

Then if I found out my daughter was intentionally run over by a bulldozer...you can be sure I'd be suing someone. And if that didn't work, I'd spend the rest of my life tracking down that bulldozer driver for payback.

It's your responsibility as a parent to avenge the death of your child. Especially if your child was trying to promote peace.

Martrae wrote:She was in front of the dozer because she thought she was invincible...she was wrong.

No, she was, by all reports, in front of the bulldozer to stop it from demolishing a nearby civilian house. Such demolitions are largely illegal under international law, and she was engaging in peaceful civil disobedience to try to block the Israelis from making people homeless.

I for one do not consider civil disobedience 'stupid'. It is a reasonable response to unjustified or illegal actions of those in power. Rachel paid the same sad price that many others have paid for their beliefs.

You don't care about the facts of the case, do you? If you did, I can't think you would make such a plainly stupid reply.

--R.

Aye, being proud of her for trying to help is good.

Blaming everyone and their brother because she thought the dozer would stop just because she jumped in front if it is bad. If she had had any brains at all she would know that wouldn't work. That wasn't the US and US laws do not apply there.

Blaming everyone and their brother because she thought the dozer would stop just because she jumped in front if it is bad. If she had had any brains at all she would know that wouldn't work. That wasn't the US and US laws do not apply there.

They aren't blaming everyone else and their brother, they are blaming who their lawyer is telling them to blame. If my daughter was killed, I would go to my lawyer, say, "ok...who is to blame" and then I would listen to him.

And why exactly wouldn't it work? Jumping in front of bulldozers has worked in the past. She was just unlucky and jumped in front of a bulldozer that was being operated by a man who considered demolishing a poor persons home was more important than a womans life.

That wasn't the US and US laws do not apply there.

And I am pretty sure that running a person over with a bulldozer is a no no in israel too. And if it's not, it most certainly falls under the law of general fucking humanity and respect for human life.

If I was manning the bulldozer (which I wouldn't be) and there was a protester standing in front of it, I'd turn the thing off and call my supervisor. If my supervisor said, "run the person over" I'd give my two weeks notice.