Did the bulldozer manufacturer affix a warning label to be read by the operator?
WARNING: DO NOT DRIVE THIS EQUIPMENT OVER HUMAN BEINGS
Seems pretty deficient, if not.
Fugazi was just quoting the cartoon. So I presume it was Steve Dallas who failed it, instead.
I thought of the exact same Bloom County strip when I saw this thread. Damn, Fugazi, you beat me to it!
Ah, and once again I prove that I know nothing of pop culture. Carry on.
This whole thing is absolutely asinine. I’m surprised the parents aren’t suing the college, her high school, grade school, and kindergarten for never teaching their precious moron of a daughter that bulldozers *will kill you * if you let them drive over you. (I mean, it’s not like bulldozers go really fast, or anything.)
I feel sorry for her family, but if this is any indication of the mental quality of their bloodline, then --as a species-- we should be grateful that it won’t be continued.
I’m not a lawyer so I’ll almost certainly get this wrong. My answer would be
E. - Accept the consequences of your foolish act.
I don’t think she had a choice on this one. 
Well, I have no particular liking for the cause this young woman evidently died for, but that is immaterial; I think that a lawsuit against the IDF is proper, as the obvious issue in the case is whether the bulldozer was operated negligently (or maliciously), or whether, in contrast, the woman endangered herself by stepping in front of it.
Suing the Bulldozer maker is silly. Even if the maker violated some law in selling the bulldozer to Israel, that doesn’t create some private right of action - the proper response would be regulatory action by the government, which would have nothing to do with “giving money to parents”.
Keep in mind that the IDF said the operator couldn’t see the young woman, despite her standing in the same place she had been as the dozer approached for 200 yards, because of the design of the machine. So if the operator isn’t responsible for running over a person, then who is? Are you really suggesting that protestors deserve to be killed for non-violent actions?
E. The college professors, for feeding her a one-sided and biased view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
F. Hell-Al’s Camel & Cab service, who drove her from her 3 star hotel to the protest site without warning her of the dangers.
G. The Ready-Mix Company, for failing to pour human-impact absorbing concrete
J. The bullhorn manufacturer, for producing an inferior amplifying device that causes the command ‘Get the Fuck Out Of the Way’ to sound muffled and inaudible
I. The estate of Dr. Benjamin McLane Spock, for helping to produce 3 generations of idiots
Are you really suggesting that a protestor can’t get out of the way of a bulldozer that’s 200’ away? I’m glad that the protestor has no onus or responsiblity for personal safety. :rolleyes:
Maybe someone can find a copy of the actual suit, but the blurb in the OP seems to accuse Catapillar of making custom bulldozers for the express purpose of demolishing homes and any people who get in the way. Perhaps there is some statute in state, federal, or international law which makes companies who sell equipment for military purposes without it being officially military equipment liable for death or damages caused by such use.
We’ll have to see. The only thing association with lawyers has taught me is that there is always more to a story. If that “more” happens to be bullshit then that’s that, but news sources are notorious for not covering legal issues accurately(the McDonalds coffee lawsuit is case in point). I’m reserving judgement on the merits, or lack thereof, of this specific suit.
Enjoy,
Steven
That’s a bit of a bizzare thing to say. 
Bulldozers are not manufacturered to suit the safety of people who deliberately step in front of them.
If it can be proven that the driver could not see the woman, it could well be that no-one is culpable. That does not mean that protesters “deserve death”, it just means that no-one can be held legally responsible for the accident.
I was involved in an inquest into the death of a man on a construction site. He was crushed to death by a cement mixer, because he stepped into its path. The inquest made recommendations concerning improving safety procedures, but in the end no-one was sued - this does not mean that working men deserve death for working around cement-mixers, just that such work is inherently dangerous and sometimes accidents happen and there is no-one to legally hold responsible for them.
I pick
E. The idiot that told poor Ms. Rachel that her depth perception was sound. :rolleyes:
Plus, he didn’t quote the entire reasoning in the strip; it goes something like this (from memory, so don’t hold it against me if I’ve gotten a few things wrong):
Sean Penn? No, juries love famous people. Plus, he might return to beat up the plaintiff. Never, never sue psychopathic celebrities.
There was also a section on whether to sue Madonna (married to Sean Penn at the time). The verdict? “No. While living with Madonna might make anyone irritable, proving liability might be difficult. Plus, she too might return to beat up the plaintiff.” 
As to the actual issue, suing the state of Israel, the Israeli Defense Ministry, and the Israeli Defense Forces (all of which Corrie’s parents are doing) seems to be the right way to go here. Suing Caterpillar is probably just a way of getting some international publicity on the issue, which I think is fine. Her death should never have happened, and while Rachel Corrie bears some of the responsibility for that, the various Israeli organizations involved bear much more, in my opinion. I hope that that part of the suit goes against the defendants.
Did he deliberately step into the path of the cement mixer or was it an accident?
Either way, it’s apples and oranges compared to this case. This flattened piece of braintrust put herself into harm’s way. On purpose. The worker assumably didn’t plan on getting in front of a cement mixer.
Rachel Corrie did not “step in front of” the bulldozer. You make it sound like she waited until the bulldozer was ten feet away before she was in front of it. It was 600 feet away. If anyone driving a bulldozer cannot see someone from the time they’re 600 feet away until the time they’re zero feet away, they probably shouldn’t be driving a bulldozer.
Accident, my ass.
Isn’t that exactly what the judge in the case will have to determine?
I too think that suing the IDF et al is a good idea - then, the facts will come out before the court.
Just from this thread, it seems to me that Dopers are busy lining up to prejudge the matter based on whether they think Corrie was politically “good” or “bad”.
To my mind, that is totally irrelevant. We simply do not have the evidence in front of us to judge who was negligent. Leave it to the court.
Nah. “Specially designed” refers to the fact that CAT is shipping military quality (hardened and slightly armored, modified cage, covered engine ports, etc) dozers. The IDF further armors them. To make it more difficult to kill the operator. This suit is no different from someone being run over by a HMMWV suing the manufacturer – it’s irrelevant whether the person was run over intentionally or accidently, rightly or wrongly, if liablity attaches it goes to the operator not the manufacturer who merely met someone else’s spec. Suing the manufacturer may have some strategic who-has-the-money value but it’s complete bullshit from a merit standpoint.
Exhibit “A” in the “prejudging the matter” file.
Really? That’s stupid too. The girl had no claim or responsibility to be there. The homeowners definitely have a right to sue the IDF for destroying their home, to that I would agree. The rest is bullshit.