[hammadfauz]

Limited liability is just not fair. If an entity's (Person or corporation) actions cause harm, they must be held liable for the full extent of the harm that they have caused, matching their level of participation in said activity.

What is really at fault here is the tort law, that allows plaintiffs to sue for unreasonably huge amounts, and for ridiculous reasons. In the example given in the article, a person could be sued for owning shares in asbestos production, in the past for as short a time as 10 min. I think that person should be liable, how else would the peoples' grievances be fulfilled. Partially fulfilled grievances is not a fair solution.

I also think it is unfair to hold that person liable for a huge amount. His liability should be calculated based on how many people he affected during his 10 min of holding the shares, and how many shares he had in the establishment during that time.

TLDR; Liability should be limited by the extent of participation in harmful activity (whether intentional or not) and to the measurable amount of damage done rather than arbitrarily.