This file outlines a mechanism for preventing the advent of irreversible damage to the environment and non-compensable harms to individuals and property, by supplying a cause of action ("Attempted Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity", hereafter, "attempted `NAHA`") through the courts which can produce an unjunction against the defendent to halt the Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity (hereafter, "`NAHA`") until such time that they can prove that they have the means to pursue those activities without incurring harms against 3rd parties that they cannot ameliorate.
## Cause of action: Attempted `NAHA`:
### Liability
Any individual having **facts of evidence** proving currently ongoing activities being undertaken by a conagent which fulfill the following criteria:
- The activity concerns itself with entities, substances and/or processes whose properties are factually capable of causing harm to a 3rd party.
- The conagent is undertaking these activities in such a manner as to cause those entities, substances and/or processes to exhibit their capability to cause harm to a 3rd party.
The defendant shall have a good defense if it can prove, concerning the harms which can be caused to 3rd parties by those entities, processes and/or substances, being utilized in the manner that they are being used, any of the following:
- That the defendant has a method of containing the 3rd party harms such that no harm can come to 3rd parties without their knowing volition, and that the defendant is carrying out said activities under the auspices of that method.
- That the defendant has informed said 3rd parties of the harm and they have consented to be exposed to the harm (volenti non fit injuria).
- That the defendant is undertaking said activities while maintaining at the ready, a provable method of *fully* reversing 3rd party harms should they occur.
If an actor who was previously bound by an injunction finds a way to ameliorate the 3rd party harms (as outlined in the "Defense" section of this file) from its activity, then the actor may sue to lift the injunction.
No government agency or government employee, while acting in their capacity as an agent of the government, shall have standing to bring an Attempted `NAHA` suit before the courts. Only private sector entities or individuals acting in their private capacity shall have standing to invoke this cause of action.
> [Apologia][Note]: Discuss the fact that some amount of evidence-free speculation of harm must be allowed to the plaintiff, and how to limit this. Or perhaps don't allow evidence-free skepticism and an unlimited assumption of guilt on the defendent.
- To ensure that the mechanism is evidence-based, we may have to reward whistle-blowers with a monetary incentive.
- To ensure that the mechanism doesn't become a company secret revealer for non-damaging activities, a whistleblower whose disclosure doesn't demonstrate damage caused by a current activity of the defendent which incurs 3rd party damage that is not already ameliorated, is liable to the defendent for damages in "Malicious prosecution" and "sabotage".
> [Note]: There needs to also be some kind of framework for protecting 3rd party neighbours from dereliction of duty in maintaining property. Things like lack of maintenance leading to vermin, etc.
Note that this cause of action can only be invoked against the actor(s) who is/are using the entity/substance/process in such a manner as to portend 3rd party harm. It may not be invoked against the manufacturer/producer of the input components required to produce the entity/substance/process.
