Of disasters, negligence and liability: Nimtoli tragedy revisited
VOL 20 NO 157 REGD NO DA 1589 Dhaka, Saturday, May 04,2013
http://www.fe-bd.com/index.php?ref=MjBfMDVfMDRfMTNfMV8yN18xNjgzMjU=
Of disasters, negligence and liability: Nimtoli tragedy revisited
Published : Saturday, 04 May 2013 In case of fire in garment factories and accidents in unauthorized buildings, the regulators like the Fire Service or Rajuk come up with arguments that the factories or buildings do not have licence or permission, But they cannot avoid the ‘tortfeasor liability’, writes M S Siddiqui
The economy of Bangladesh has been growing, on an average, by about 6.0 per cent for the last 15-16 years, and there is an emerging middle class. Statistics reveals that higher growth is occurring in the service sector rather than in the industrial sector. Although the demand for services and the availability have gone up, there is a lack of professionalism among the service providers. The regulators are somewhat reluctant to carry out their responsibilities. Moreover, Bangladesh does not have any tort act of its own. The country inherited a draft Tort Act from the British colonial government. But the relevant authorities seem to be ignorant about even where the draft is. Regulators are generally bureaucrats, and are 'relieved of' all their liabilities. These possible liabilities are interrelated, with one influencing the other, particularly under the Tort Act or Convention.
Many people were roasted alive in a devastating fire at Nimtoli in the capital in 2010. The blaze occurred apparently due to storage of combustible chemicals in the residential area. Businesspersons dealing in chemicals in old Dhaka have come under surveillance by law enforcers and regulators after the Nimtoli fire. But the civil society and the people in general also have a role to play.
The government and some private organisations like housing developers should be held responsible for failure to prevent certain types of
http://www.fe-bd.com/index.php?ref=MjBfMDVfMDRfMTNfMV8yN18xNjgzMjU=
Of disasters, negligence and liability: Nimtoli tragedy revisited
Published : Saturday, 04 May 2013 In case of fire in garment factories and accidents in unauthorized buildings, the regulators like the Fire Service or Rajuk come up with arguments that the factories or buildings do not have licence or permission, But they cannot avoid the ‘tortfeasor liability’, writes M S Siddiqui
The economy of Bangladesh has been growing, on an average, by about 6.0 per cent for the last 15-16 years, and there is an emerging middle class. Statistics reveals that higher growth is occurring in the service sector rather than in the industrial sector. Although the demand for services and the availability have gone up, there is a lack of professionalism among the service providers. The regulators are somewhat reluctant to carry out their responsibilities. Moreover, Bangladesh does not have any tort act of its own. The country inherited a draft Tort Act from the British colonial government. But the relevant authorities seem to be ignorant about even where the draft is. Regulators are generally bureaucrats, and are 'relieved of' all their liabilities. These possible liabilities are interrelated, with one influencing the other, particularly under the Tort Act or Convention.
Many people were roasted alive in a devastating fire at Nimtoli in the capital in 2010. The blaze occurred apparently due to storage of combustible chemicals in the residential area. Businesspersons dealing in chemicals in old Dhaka have come under surveillance by law enforcers and regulators after the Nimtoli fire. But the civil society and the people in general also have a role to play.
The government and some private organisations like housing developers should be held responsible for failure to prevent certain types of