Strictly speaking, you as a private litigant generally cannot make criminal charges - only the state does that. A civil suit is "these guys harmed me specifically and I want to be repaid", a criminal charge is "these guys are threats to society and should be thrown in jail". And the latter has a very high bar to meet for corporations, because corporations rarely have the capacity or mental state to actually meet that bar[0]. They are machines, after all.
In a civil suit, you are expected to be paid in money damages or maybe injunctions. Those damages are construed to be the same as, say, owing money to a bondholder. Going bankrupt lets you wipe out those obligations; so presumably those pending cases might also get wiped out. But that's also judge-dependent and fact-dependent, which is why they get wrapped up into the bankruptcy proceeding.
[0] This is also why civil torts are almost always strict-liability. If everything required intent, corporations would be above the law.
> [0] This is also why civil torts are almost always strict-liability. If everything required intent, corporations would be above the law.
because of the lack of investigatory powers (e.g. can't seize their documents, wiretap their communications, search their facilities, etc.) civil cases could generally never work against anyone if they had to show intent. If you get a judgement against you for a civil matter that requires intent you have really screwed up.
The thing I was pointing towards was more that businesses are very, very good at making torts look accidental, because corporations are fundamentally emotionless.
But the limited investigative powers afforded to civil torts are also a really, really big hurdle to proving intent.
True, and I suppose I could rephrase my cognitivie dissonance as not understanding (1) why there are only civil suits regarding Hertz's behavior, and (2) why the article so accepts this state of affairs that the absence of criminal charges only shows up tangentially.
> a criminal charge is "these guys are threats to society and should be thrown in jail". And the latter has a very high bar to meet for corporations, because corporations rarely have the capacity or mental state to actually meet that bar[0].
Let me get this straight. Corporations should require a higher bar, because they have no ethical sense?!
No, it's the opposite. Civil torts have a lower bar for judgment. This makes it easier to try corporations who often do not have a guilty mind - or any mind to begin with.
We recognize that accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car is different than deliberately doing the same. Both of these would be considered vehicular manslaughter (assuming the victim died) but the latter could also be a murder charge.
In a civil suit, you are expected to be paid in money damages or maybe injunctions. Those damages are construed to be the same as, say, owing money to a bondholder. Going bankrupt lets you wipe out those obligations; so presumably those pending cases might also get wiped out. But that's also judge-dependent and fact-dependent, which is why they get wrapped up into the bankruptcy proceeding.
[0] This is also why civil torts are almost always strict-liability. If everything required intent, corporations would be above the law.