Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel compelled, from the tone of the comment, to point this out: Limited liability isn't some surprise side effect of a corporation's legal structure, it is often right there in the name (Ltd, LLC, Pty Ltd, etc). Yes that structure lets people get away with harmful shenanigans. The system is biased towards optimism. Feature, not bug. The benefits and strengths of this have so far completely outweighed the costs to…
Limited Liability refers to the suppliers of capital, which often differ from the employees and directors that are responsible for the issues like in the article. I am fine with this since there is no moral hazard, but the parties involved / responsible should not be able to take their bonuses, click bankrupt and restart elsewhere under a new name. Society needs more protection, clearly.
In fact, in Florida--as well as many other jurisdictions in the US--there is a special category of torts that cover liability for ultrahazarous activities and apply strict liability. There are cases that have specifically dealt with the impoundment of large quantities of water.
Bunyak v. Clyde J. Yancey & Sons Dairy, Inc., 438 So.2d 891 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1983). Cities Service Co. v. State, 312 So.2d 799 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1975).[1]
Note the facts the latter case, Cities, dealt with:
>The appellant, Cities Service Company (Cities Service), operates a phosphate rock mine in Polk County. On December 3, 1971, a dam break occurred in one of Cities Service's settling ponds. As a result, approximately one billion gallons of phosphate slimes contained therein escaped into Whidden Creek and thence into the Peace River, thereby killing countless numbers of fish and inflicting other damage.
>Appellee, The State of Florida (State), filed suit against Cities Service seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the dam break.
It is absolutely true that the way that corporations have escaped liability for these activities is to "socialize losses" as an OP has aptly stated. In this situation, the prior owner went bankrupt and handed this major liablity to the state to maintain for years and when it breaks, the state (possibly federal) taxpayers and the environment will bear the loss.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1849457/cities-service...