"Sarah Banick" wrote in message
. ..
Why? If it was the manager's job to ensure the tests are carried out,
and
he didn't,
then why is the owner responsible?

If I own shares in a company that kills someone due to negligent
management, do I and
the other shareholders get prosecuted rather than the company's
management?

Theoretically, the shareholders should lose value of their shares.

Only if the company goes bust, and anyway that's not prosecution, that's
just losing
an investment.

It doesn't have to go bust to lose a huge portion of its value. And if that
is your retirement savings, it is punishment enough. That's why shareholders
are demanding more accountability from boards. Shareholders ARE the owners,
and they do get screwed (just ask any former Enron employee)

But that goes without saying - if you invest in a company whose management or
employees screw things up then you lose, if they do well and make loads of money then
you win, that's the nature of owning a company/hotel/shares/whatever.

But there's a massive difference between that and criminal responsibility.

But, at
least in US corporations, the legal structure of the corporation places
that
final responsibilty in management -- the Board members who are elected by
the shareholders. They are all insured in case of this.

We're talking about criminal responsibility. How can you insure against
getting set
to prison for manslaughter?

No, you can't insure for that -- or for the type of issues that execs at
Tyco, Enron, etc. are now on trial/in jail for. But if you come after money,
the insurance handles it. After Sarbanes-Oxley*, however, there is the
possibility of personal liability and corps are getting much pickier about
their board members.

*recent changes in US laws to try to control corrupts corporations

And stupid security requirements IIRC.

But was the hotel a corporation, or just a small business? If it is a
small
business, the owner is responsible, because he/she hired the manager to
represent him/her. The buck stops here. Of course, I'm making comments
based
on US concepts that are probably useless in Greece, so I'll shut up now.

Really? So if you hire someone who does something stupid, illegal, or
negligent, you
are responsible? Even if there is no way you could have known or suspected
they were
incompetant or crooked?

Again, I don't know where you are from, but in the US the owner is
responsible. You do background checks before you hire, you specify things in
a contract, but if you are the owner (depending on your legal
classification), you will be ultimately responsible. The owner holds the
business license and any other permits. He/she has a "contract" with hotel
patrons to provide a safe holiday experience. The manager is his
representative. If that contract is broken by an idiot employee, the owner
has failed to meet his responsibilities. That's why any business owner needs
to keep a close eye on their investment, even if they have to hire outside
auditors/consultants to keep an eye on the manager/staff actions. An owner
should see regular reports from the manager, including all costs for
building maintenance.

In today's climate of pointing fingers, it may be hard to believe. But it's
true.

So the owner is *criminally* responsible for actions committed by his manager/staff??

What a ridiculous situation - just as stupid as UK laws a couple of centuries ago
where men could be sent to prison for crimes committed by their wives.

--
Andy