sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) (02/11/86)
In Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11790,: > Suppose that the right SRB were recovered from the ocean and analyzed, >and it were determined that a manufacturing defect introduced by Morton- >Thiokol was responsible for the failure. In this case would they not >then be liable for consequential damages (i.e. the destruction of the >orbiter)? In particular, is it possible that NASA could sue them for the >cost of a new orbiter? Sure they could. Or, if it were in the assembly process, the estates could sue NASA. Or, if it were bad design, they could sue NASA and the design engineers. Or, perhaps, everyone in Congress that voted for the lower NASA appropriation. Unless the explosion were determined to be from an act of Nature, you can bet that everyone is going to exercise fully their legal rights to ask for compensation for damages done due to negligence and failure to exercise extraordinary care, the usual standard for carrying passengers. On the other hand, it's speculation like that above that makes me wonder if some folks with stock in the competition for Morton-Thiokol, Rockwell, Grumman, and the rest of the shuttle contractors aren't posting to the net, hoping to add financial insult to the injury those stocks are going to take. -- Steve Daniels (!pyuxh!sdd) "I'm counting the smiles on the road to Utopia."