The parents of Rachel Corrie, the protester who died at 23 when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home, are appealing a federal judge’s decision to throw out their lawsuit against Peoria-based Caterpillar Inc., which manufactured the bulldozer (Mar. 16, 2005). (Gene Johnson, “Rachel Corrie’s family appeals lawsuit against bulldozer-maker”, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 23). Were courts to invite lawsuits against companies for lawful sales of this sort, they would open up many opportunities for litigants to use tort law as a surrogate sanctions mechanism against foreign governments, even though in our constitutional scheme it is Congress and the executive branch, rather than the courts, which bear the responsibility of weighing the policy considerations in favor of or against such sanctions.
Related posts
In product liability; Seattle
“Family of protester killed by bulldozer suing Caterpillar”
“The parents of a 23-year-old activist killed while trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home have sued Caterpillar Inc., the company that made the bulldozer that ran over her. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday…
Even if Caterpillar was responsible for how the buldozers it sells are used by Isreal, under what legal theory do the plaitiffs intend to have a U.S. court punish a violation of international law?
Rachel Corrie lived and died a terrorist.
Maybe Mohammed Taheri-azar’s victims can sue Jeep?