Ralph Nader’s Opposition to Prop. 51
The article (May 17), “Nader Assails Prop. 51 as Harmful to Toxic Victims,” was very informative to a layman such as myself. The input I received from this initiative was that the “deep pocket” law was unfair. The “deep pocket” law takes money from the third party of an accident to pay for damages to the second party of an accident that was the fault of the first party of an accident.
Cries that the passage of this initiative would save taxpayers money, would lower liability insurance premiums for the public and private sector, and would deter people from filing lawsuits with little merit are all strong arguments for a Yes vote on Proposition 51. Nevertheless, the article gave the voters vital information in what I have dared to call the hidden argument against Proposition 51.
For example, without the passage of this proposition a major polluter would not bother to prove that a minor polluter was involved in the contamination process. If this initiative was passed however, the major polluter would be able to blame all the minor polluters that were involved in order to make it difficult to prove who was at fault.
I feel if the assailants of Proposition 51 wish to achieve the results they are arguing for, they better start publicizing their arguments quickly because through the eyes of a layman, it looks as though Proposition 51 will otherwise be accepted.
PAUL R. CONTRERAS