10-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You Can!
By Kirsten Korosec | Oct 21, 2009
Landowners along the Mississippi Gulf Coast are blaming a mishmosh of oil, coal and chemical companies for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina as a result of global warming. Yes, that’s right, the specter of global warming lawsuits has come to call and thanks to a recent federal appeals ruling, the plaintiffs have earned their day in court.
The plaintiffs argument in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA goes like this. Fossil fuel and chemical companies emitted greenhouse gases that contributed to an increase in air and water temperatures, which caused sea levels to rise and as a result created a more powerful and damaging Hurricane Katrina. We know what happened next: property damage caused by hurricane-force winds and water.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans issued a favorable ruling and reversed an earlier decision to dismiss the case. The three-judge panel said the plaintiffs have standing to bring forward a number of claims including public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
This is the second decision by a federal appeals court in recent weeks to reverse trial court dismissals involving global warming claims.
Last month, the Second Circuit Court reversed an earlier dismissal of the Connecticut v. AEP case and ruled in favor of eight states, NYC and some environmental organizations that sued six major power companies on the basis that their greenhouse gas emissions were a public nuisance, the Warming Law blog reported.
This latest decision by the Fifth comes down two words: fairly traceable. This means the plaintiffs provided enough detail in their claims to demonstrate a link between the defendant’s actions and the resulting damage.
But it’s far from a slamdunk for the plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit has only ruled the plaintiffs provided a detailed enough claim to earn their day in court. The plaintiffs still have to prove causation.
This leaves me with nagging question about how far this could all go. I’ll offer up an extreme scenario. Can I sue the auto industry or certain car companies whose inventory is dominated by SUVs? For that matter, can I sue my Hummer-driving neighbor for global warming?
More on this Story
By Kirsten Korosec | Oct 21, 2009
Landowners along the Mississippi Gulf Coast are blaming a mishmosh of oil, coal and chemical companies for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina as a result of global warming. Yes, that’s right, the specter of global warming lawsuits has come to call and thanks to a recent federal appeals ruling, the plaintiffs have earned their day in court.
The plaintiffs argument in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA goes like this. Fossil fuel and chemical companies emitted greenhouse gases that contributed to an increase in air and water temperatures, which caused sea levels to rise and as a result created a more powerful and damaging Hurricane Katrina. We know what happened next: property damage caused by hurricane-force winds and water.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans issued a favorable ruling and reversed an earlier decision to dismiss the case. The three-judge panel said the plaintiffs have standing to bring forward a number of claims including public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
This is the second decision by a federal appeals court in recent weeks to reverse trial court dismissals involving global warming claims.
Last month, the Second Circuit Court reversed an earlier dismissal of the Connecticut v. AEP case and ruled in favor of eight states, NYC and some environmental organizations that sued six major power companies on the basis that their greenhouse gas emissions were a public nuisance, the Warming Law blog reported.
This latest decision by the Fifth comes down two words: fairly traceable. This means the plaintiffs provided enough detail in their claims to demonstrate a link between the defendant’s actions and the resulting damage.
But it’s far from a slamdunk for the plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit has only ruled the plaintiffs provided a detailed enough claim to earn their day in court. The plaintiffs still have to prove causation.
This leaves me with nagging question about how far this could all go. I’ll offer up an extreme scenario. Can I sue the auto industry or certain car companies whose inventory is dominated by SUVs? For that matter, can I sue my Hummer-driving neighbor for global warming?