On The Joys Of China Factory Work

Call me a tort cynic, but I'll believe that lawyers are the champions of safety when they love to have engineers on juries, and are concerned with what really caused the injury (not who has the deepest pockets and how they can get money).

For example, lawyers can actually cause more deaths if their lawsuits (e.g. against hospitals for babies born with disabilities) cause institutions to do risky procedures that really don't help with anything but avoid lawsuits (e.g. more C-sections).

And, I wouldn't be so eager to say that "plants should be set up so negligence can't happen". Human error can always happen - for example, chemical plants still occasionally blow up in the US. If people violate procedures (for example, have dangling leads connected to 450V - yes, it happened and the tech got shocked, but nothing else fortunately), there's not much you can do.

But the bottom line is that saying "It's worker error" is B.S. The company should have a real (third party?) investigation, to find out what really happened, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again (including ways to minimize or eliminate worker error). And, if they don't care about worker lives, well, they should care about profits - I'm sure the explosion is costing them plenty.

It seems some aluminum plant explosions in US are also ruled as "human error" after accident investigation.

For example the 2006 Hot Springs, Arkansas and 2005 Point Comfort, Texas aluminum plant explosions.

Tony --

I would never claim our tort system is perfect when it is, in fact, far from it. But, it has forced safety and to that extent it does work, greatly flawed though it is.
Certainly a system where plaintiff's have no shot at real damages is no deterrent.

I never said plants should be set up so negligence can't happen. I said a plant has to bear some responsibility for setting up a plant where worker negligence can kill so many.

Charles Liu --

Yea, so. People in the US die from worker negligence all the time. But why are we talking about the US here? The US has been working to improve worker safety for at least 50 years and it has succeeded wildly. What should China be doing to improve its worker safety or are you of the view that it need not do a thing?

Dan, your called out this sentence:

"If worker error was responsible for the accident, that error could only have occurred if there was a fatal design or safety flaw in the plant itself."

Now, does this apply to ourselves? If so how can we ever rule any industrial accident as "human error"?

The facts of the case suggests it's a lot more nuianced.

Mr. Harris:

This is an excellent topic, for a blog or an article.

With respect to "if China's legal system allowed its injured to recover damages...", the Chinese legal system does allow its injured to recover real damages. In fact, the damages that can be covered include both actual damages and compensation for "emotional damages." Currently, the law of torts in China is not an independent body of law; instead, it is covered in the Civil Procedure Law of China and the General Principles of Civil Laws of China. In addition, the People's Supreme Court also issued two opinions and explanations on compensations in personal injury cases in 2001 and 2003. [if you want to read them, I can provide a copy in Chinese.]

Why then does industial accidents occur at such high rates in China even with the current tort system in place? [I don't have accurate data to back up "high rates". But for instance, according to a NPR report, on average 13 miners die in China daily due to accidents.]

Is it because damages awarded by Chinese courts are not large enough to deter people into being more safety-minded and exercising their duty of care? Maybe since China does not have jury trials, whereby allowing the jury to decide the amount of damages. However, remember that one of the basic ideas of tort law is a calculation of whether the cost of avoiding accidents is greater than actual damages that might occur...

Is it because more accidents are gonna happen simply due to the sheer size of China, its population, human activities, world factory, etc.?

Is it because the injured in China does not get their day in court for damages? I don't have the data to answer this question, but either way, the answer to this question would partially shed light on the issue raised by you.

Is it because negligent parties in China can get away with "murder" by way of purchasing insurance, or other means of escaping liability while going essentially unpunished? I don't know...

As one might see, so many factors affect behaviors of tortfeasors and the injured. Establihsing a damage-compensation system is just one factor in reducing accidents/tortous behaviors.

Currently, some experts and tort law professors in China are in the early stages of drafting a comprensive tort code (for example, professor Yang lixin of the People's U). They are looking at both European codes and the American common law. How will tort damages be dealt with remains to be seen.

On "The 88s" blog Charles Liu admitted he has never been to China nor speaks Chinese. I pointed out that he is basically just a CCP sympathizer who has derived some sort of hand-me-down Chinese nationalism, perhaps from his parents or grandparents but if they love the motherland so much why did they come to the US?

In larger Chinese communities around the US (and I don't include Taiwanese), there still prevails an active feeling of "being looked down upon" because of what the immigrants were taught as kids and adults in China. And the CCP has people within these groups actively stoking the inferiority complex as well as keeping the fires of loyalty to China if not the CCP burning.

Charles Liu is the product of such a system, and apparently he cannot separate facts. In countries with real courts and real laws, industrial accidents take quite a while to investigate and litigate. The Shandong cases are simply factory management placing pre-emptive blame on the workers. And it is highly unlikely that any injured workers would get a fair hearing much less compensation at the local court level (more likely a beating for complaining and causing embarrassment to local officials and factory managers).

Charles Liu --

I am sure it is a lot more nuanced than either I or the Shandong authorities make it out to be. Ultimately, virtually every accident is either human error or "Act of God." But, what I am really trying to get at here is that China has far too many industrial accidents and I think it is because the repurcussions are just not severe enough. I am a big believer in financial incentives and disincentives and lawsuits are an effective incentive to be careful.

Brad Luo --

You definitely raise some interesting issues, but I think you are complicating things unnecessarily. Forget the laws and let's talk reality. The reality is that a Chinese plaintiff in a wrongful death case will be extremely lucky to get $50,000 and those kinds of numbers only happen if the plaintiff is in Shanghai, has a great job, is young and has kids.

Up here in Seattle, there has been an amazing transformation in the fisheries business. Maritime injuries bring big awards and so companies started spending all kinds of money on safety features/equipment/training and injuries have plummeted. Cause and effect.

Forget for a moment all the questions you raised and imagine if China had a law saying the negligent death of an employee costs the employer at least $100,000 every time and the loss of a limb costs at least $50,000 every time. Now tell me things would not get much safer for employees fast.

nh --

Either Charles Liu is right or wrong, making good points or making bad points. Where he comes from and what he speaks, etc., matter not. I certainly would hate for someone to psychoanlyze me in one paragraph, based only on a few items from my past.

TwoFish --

I wrote my comment to nh before you wrote yours (though yours appears to have come in before mine). As you can see, we think alike on the issue of ad hominem attacks: they are of little to no value.

Great blog, I just now am looking through it after seeing you linked to me. I think your perspective will benifit me although I may not always understand the legal talk at times.

I have to say I agree with Jeremy on his first comment. It is hard for me to seperate the 2 issues. Little care for human life seems to be a constant theme from the chinese government, and trickles down into their society. so sad.

Also, Before I had ever started Not China Made, Charles visited my mommy blog. I was posting about the human organ harvesting and he was a massive denier... I won't try to wrap up who he is and where he comes from- knowing so little. but he had very little to back up his facts... simply links to things that mostly had nothing to do with what he was trying to say. When I started questioning where he stood on a lot of other topics regarding china (naming them- i wanted to get a feel for what kind of person he was and what he stood for. If little moral ethic was in him, then it made sense.) At any rate, I never heard back.

He frequents the types of areas. He has not happened to not china made dot net yet, but maybe soon!

I will be linking to you.
Your blog looks very nice as well.