This post almost did not get written (no, not because the zombie llamas attacked again; their attack was nowhere close to that effectual). It started with me reading a BBC article on Caterpillar being sued by the family of an American activist killed in Gaza. She was in front of a bulldozer (reportedly a D9 track-type tractor), when it demolished a house. An Israeli investigation called it an accident.
My initial thoughts on the matter was that it was yet another case of people blaming a company for how a third party used that company’s product. I ranked it right up there with lawsuits against gunmakers and the Grokster suit soon to be before the Supreme Court. I stuck the article into my fodder file, ready to rage on behalf of the machine. As I’m trying to make this blog something more than just a collection of instant rants though, I started researching the story. That’s what nearly killed the post.
My initial googling turned up the Stop Caterpillar site, which aims to do what its name implies and stop Caterpillar’s sales and service to Israel. From there I found my way onto the Caterpillar site and I then found my way to the pdf of Caterpillar’s Code of Worldwide Business Conduct. A good deal of reading later (including brief side trips to the UN’s human rights and international law pages, the Palestinian National Authority site, the Israeli Government Gateway, and one or two others), I realized there may be a case after all.
Their Code of Conduct could make them liable (though I’m thankfully not a lawyer). The most damning bit of the Code (which I don’t think I saw quoted anywhere else) is this excerpt:
We also expect that our host countries will recognize our need for stability, growth, and business success, and that they will honor their agreements, including those relating to rights and properties of citizens of other nations.
I still don’t think it implicates them due to the sale of the bulldozers, but if they were still providing parts and service…
Having come to that conclusion, my rage had been dissipated. I do still think a company or individual, in general, should not be held responsible for what is done with their product after ownership has been transfered, but this case might be an exception. Just goes to show, don’t look into issues or you might have your mind changed.