The problem with the trolley problem, is that it doesn’t really solve any problems.

Whatever variables are introduced into the problem say as much about the psychology of the designer of the problem, as does any answer provided by the person whose sense of morality is being assessed.

Deciding whether to pull the handle, push the fat man or, do nothing and leave everything to providence carries no real moral consequences, in what is simply a thought experiment.

In What is Liability? Part 1, we observed that in the modern, real world, terms the morality of any choice made is less relevant to the corporate body than the question of who gets held accountable for this incident at the inevitable inquiry.

Try this one.

A company has won a great, big, juicy contract. This contract will raise the company profile. (Unfortunately, it won’t raise their bank balance because they under-priced the contract by at least £500,000 but, hey-ho and away we go.)

The contract involves working on, and alongside, roads and highways. Because of this there are very clear contractual stipulations regarding machinery and equipment.

The machinery used must be of a specific type and, as it is being used on the highways, it must be indexed, have a proper lighting rig with brake lights and indicators, air suspension seats, a roll-over protection system, and a seat belt. (These units start at around £25,000, and custom work increases the unit price. Probably best to lease.)

Personal Protective Equipment for the operatives must also be of a specified type, and colour. Operative transport must have the correct hazard signifiers, and each team must have a qualified first-aider.

The work is scheduled. The client is informed, daily, where the teams are going to be, and each team leader is to be provided with a works phone for communication.

Excellent. Nice and precise. The contractor will of course abide by these rules. Won’t they?

Delays in obtaining equipment, and difficulties in attracting and hiring additional employees means that on the day of contract start, the contractor is already a month behind.

So, what is the proper corporate response to this problem?

Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy. You pull already employed operatives, from other contracts.

These operatives are not provided with the specified personal protective equipment. Their transports do not have the specified hazard signifiers.

Some of the machines that they are using are of entirely the wrong type, cost around £4000 per unit and are not indexed. They have no lighting rigs, just a small LED beacon. The suspension is a couple of springs under the seat. There is no roll-over protection system, and no seat belt. These machines are so low to the ground, a vehicle could feasibly roll right over the top of them. The machine would be obliterated, and if the operator wasn’t killed instantly, it would certainly hurt the whole time they were dying.

Work phones cost too much money, and not a single team has a qualified first-aider. The operatives are instructed to lie to the client, should the client ever ask. And if the client ever finds out, the operatives can be disciplined for lying to the client. Everybody wins.

The teams are thrown on to the contract, incorrectly equipped and without the specified qualifications.

What if there had been an accident? What if an incorrectly equipped operative had been killed in the course of their duties? Who would be liable? Would anybody be liable?

The client, even though they have inspectors roaming around for the purpose of making sure contract specifications are adhered to, isn’t about to be held liable.

The corporate body would of course do everything it could to avoid accountability. The buck might go upwards, but crap rolls downhill. The blame would pe passed down to the lowest possible tier. Most likely local management, or even team leaders if possible. If the dead operative themselves can be held responsible, then even better.

The argument would no doubt be, “But you sent us out with the wrong equipment.” With the corporate response being, “Well, you should have said something then, shouldn’t you?”

The pulled operatives spend so long on the contract that the existing client base starts asking questions like, “Where did everybody go?”, “Why is our work not being done?”, “Is the company still going?”

This continues until the new contract is, more or less, adequately staffed and equipped and the existing client base is making noises about going elsewhere. So, the pulled operatives are dumped back onto their contracts and expected to catch up.

Nobody is dead. The contract is underway, if somewhat behind schedule, and everything is a-okay. Phew! Got away with that. Moral conundrum dodged.

More or less.

An operative who has been using the small £4000 machine, that if we recall meets none of the contract specifications, has been complaining of a bad back from the rough ride.

One weekend at home, they take a daytime nap, and wake up paralysed from the waist down. The victim of a spinal stroke.

Is there a causal relationship?

Spinal strokes are rare, accounting for less than 2% of all strokes, and are caused by a clot or bleed disrupting the blood supply in either the posterior or, more commonly, anterior artery. Age and lifestyle are the most common factors at play in any stroke. Spinal cancers are another potential cause of a spinal cord infarction.

Spinal cord infarction secondary to either a hyperextension injury of the spine, or a spinal cord compression is also possible.

With the rarity of spinal strokes and therefore a lack of precedent and case studies, no specialist orthopaedist or neurosurgeon will make any commitment to causality. Even if only to protect themselves from potential litigation.

It may be that the spinal stroke was the result of being bounced around on woefully inadequate machinery. But, the infarction did not occur at work and no doctor would commit to a reason. That’s the company take away.

After a year of partial recovery, it is decided that the operative no longer has a place with the company, and employer and employee part ways.

And, that’s it. Nobody is liable. Nobody is accountable. The world turns on.

There’s no punchline here. At this point, it would be inappropriate to hail the shareholder. But go right ahead if it makes you happy.