[rayiner]

The system creates liability for owners of instrumentalities that inherently create a risk to society, like cars.

Should to owners of a coal plant be liable if it explodes and injures people living nearby? Even if they weren't the ones who were operating it at the time?

[finneusbarr]

Certainly, if it was their fault; i.e., if the plant was in a state of disrepair. If the coal plant exploded because the current operators acted in a willfully negligent manner, they should completely bear the cost.

[guard-of-terra]

If they lease or sell it, they should not.

[rayiner]

If they sell their ownership interest they clearly don't have liability. If they lease it, they are profiting from the operation of the dangerous instrument, why should they be insulated from the risks of that operation?

Again, realize that the tort system does not create the costs. Operation of dangerous things has inherent costs. Ownership of property implies the right to receive the benefits for that operation, so it should imply the obligation to bear the risks of that operation.

[guard-of-terra]

The risk in this case is destroyed car, but not the health liability. If the car was dangerous, then there should be liability; if it wasn't, there absolutely should not.

[rayiner]

No, the health liability is a risk of car operation. Accidents happen, and they injure people, even in the absence of negligence or poor maintenance. Driving creates a risk of injury to others, inherently.