this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
518 points (98.5% liked)

Work Reform

17005 readers
475 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That doesn't logically follow at all.

It does. When you eliminate the "corporate veil", liability doesn't end at the person, but reaches back to the person's business as well. If we eschew the traditional liability limits of a partnership by eliminating the veil (such as by commingling personal and business assets), the legal distinction ends. The partners and the business all become a single entity. Liabilities of one become liabilities of all.

You do not have claim on someone's house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation

That is generally true, yes.

But it is only true because of the concept of the corporate veil. In saying that the victim can't make such a claim, you are describing the veil. The only reason you do not have a claim on the partner's house is because of the veil.

You do not get to simultaneously claim the veil is bad, and then hide behind it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

When you eliminate the “corporate veil”, liability doesn’t end at the person, but reaches back to the person’s business as well

Get send you're totally unfamiliar with civil liability