Wellspring: Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity (`NAHA`)

Purpose

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.

Warrant: Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity Warrant:

As with all WS warrants, the warrant shall specify its scope (places, things and effects to be searched/siezed); there shall be no general warrants in a WS polity.

This warrant is a transferrable, vendable legal instrument. It is intentional that a successfully procured warrant may be sold off by its original obtainer (or any subsequent owner) to another entity to execute and prosecute it, under whatever terms are deemed mutually profitable to both parties to the transaction.

Standing and burden of proof:

Any employee working for an employer shall have standing to seek a warrant against that employer. The burden of proof and other requirements needed to obtain this warrant (including affidavits, etc) shall be legislatively defined.

Powers:

This warrant grants the executor the power to enter into the relevant premises of employment and search/sieze such evidence as is necessary to prove the conduct of Non-Ameliorable Activity which may be harmful to a 3rd party. The executor of the warrant may take with itself such witnesses and equipment as are determined necessary by the court to procure relevant evidence, subject to such limitations as are defined by the legislature to allow the employer to protect trade secrets, unless such trade secrets are themselves relevant evidence.

Upon finding sufficient evidence, the executor has recourse in the courts to a cause of action known as the "Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity".

Cause of action: `Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity`:

Liability

Any ongoing activities being undertaken by a conagent which fulfill the following criteria:

A 3rd party here refers to any indepagent which has not consented to be exposed to the possible harm complained of, or the private property such an indepagent.
The activity concerns itself with entities, substances and/or processes whose properties are in fact, 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.

...shall be deemed Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity.

Burden of proof:

The burden lies with the plaintiff to show that a NAHA has been committed; the burden of proof shall be defined by the legislature.

Defense

The defendant shall have a good defense if it can prove, concerning the harms which could allegedly 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.

[Apologia]: Although this is strongly implied by the fact that the alleged potential harms must affect a THIRD party, make sure to find a way to make it clear that conducting non-Ameliorable activities in such a remote, isolated location as to make it impossible for the harms to affect a 3rd party; and showing the ability to fully contain the harmful effects to the confines of that remotely located property, beyond reasonable doubt, does also constitute a defense. Though in this case, the court shall order that the remote location be well walled off and that clear signs be put up to warn stray conagents to take necessary caution.

[Apologia]: Also make it clear that the undertaker of the NAHA in such a remote facility must fully disclose any leakage of the entities/substances, and provide to the SovCBIO branch, a full plan of the facility which discloses at minimum, the locations and known properties/nature of all dangerous entities/substances. Furthermore, the plan/design of the facility where these activities are to be undertaken must be carefully set up so as to ensure that in the event of a disaster/leak, the facility can be closed, contained, sealed and possibly systematically destroyed with the assistance of the SovCBIO branch.

[Apologia]: Wherever such a remote facility is constructed in order to work with entities/substances with unknown properties whose harmful effects cannot be reliably reversed, a full public disclosure of the location of the facility and the nature of the activities to be undertaken there are to be published and routinely updated every time those activities change, and at least once every 3 months; until such time that a method of fully reversing the effects of the entities/processes/substances is discovered.

Relief:

Upon judgment proceeding in favour of the plaintiff,

Overthrowing an injunction produced by this cause of action:

If an actor who was previously bound by an injunction to suspend a NAHA finds a way to ameliorate the 3rd party harms (as outlined in the "Defense" section of this file) capable of arising from its activity, then the actor may sue to lift the relevant injunctions and resume operation.

Limitations:

No foothold for government to establish a regulatory agency

No government agency or government employee, while acting in their capacity as an agent of the government, shall have standing to bring a NAHA complaint before the courts. Only private sector entities or conagents acting in their private capacity shall have standing to invoke this cause of action.

[Apologia, 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.

Explicit limitation of liability to the immediate actor(s):

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.

6.8 KiB Raw Blame History

Wellspring: Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity (NAHA)