Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon
A suit being settled out of court is an admission of guilt that they are trying to pay off because they know they are in the wrong and that it would end up costing them more.
|
You got only a small part of that right. Settling out of court is done when it would cost more money to fight something in court, and the party doesn't feel that it would be worth that extra money.
Quote:
It's like when you go to traffic court and the judge offers you to plea down your ticket and get zero points on your license you still have to admit guilt.
|
"There was no admission of guilt" is actually a legal status in this case. It's a stipulation of the settlement. The people settling do not care that there was no admission of guilt as part of the settlement, because they just want to settle (and also do not want to spend the money that would be required to fight it in court).
Quote:
This is true but at the end of the day, the person in charge of the company is still held responsible for what goes on in their company.
|
Legally, right, at least in a situation like this. (They're not going to be held responsible, at least not fully responsible, in a situation where, say, an employee comes to work with a weapon and starts killing people, for just one alternate example.)
Quote:
They are supposed to be briefed on everything going on in their company on a regular basis.
|
You're stating that as if it's a law. There's no law about that.
Quote:
Are you sure you know anything about being in charge of a company?
|
<eye roll>
Quote:
People don't change. They never do. They make attempts to change and give off appearances like they do but deep down in their core. They are the same person they always were.
|
I believe just the opposite of that (at least on a "literal"/detailed/fine-grained ontological level). Everything always changes. You can't step in the same river twice.