FACING SOUTH - Online Magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies

Subscribe to RSS

Katrina victims get OK to sue polluters over global warming

mississippi_damage_katrina.jpgA federal appeals court in New Orleans has given the go-ahead for a groundbreaking class-action lawsuit over global warming to proceed.

Share/Bookmark

The case, titled Ned Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, et al. [pdf], involves a group of residents and landowners along the Mississippi Gulf Coast  who suffered severe property damage during Hurricane Katrina. They allege that the defendants -- energy, fossil fuels and chemical companies -- emitted greenhouse gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a rise in sea levels that increased the storm's ferocity.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi originally sided with the defendants, who argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and said their claims presented political questions that did not properly belong in court. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which itself suffered damage in Katrina and had to temporarily move its operations to Houston.

The Fifth Circuit -- considered one of the nation's most conservative -- reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence claims. It sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

Writing about the case at his blog, professor and National Law Journal columnist Russell Jackson observed:
Comer is particularly important because it is a private class action for compensatory and punitive damages, not a suit brought by states or municipalities for injunctive relief. And that means contingency fees. And thus the promise of copycat lawsuits.
The Fifth Circuit is the second federal appeals court in less than a month to reverse a lower court decision throwing out a climate change lawsuit for presenting a political question, with the other being the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in Connecticut v. American Electric Power. That case involved a suit originally brought in 2004 by eight states and New York City and later joined by several land trusts. The targets of the suit are American Electric Power of Ohio, the Southern Co. of Atlanta, the federal Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy of Minneapolis, and Cinergy, an Ohio company acquired by North Carolina-based Duke Energy in 2005.

"Although we arrived at our own decision independently," Judge James Dennis wrote in Comer, "the Second Circuit's reasoning is fully consistent with ours, particularly in its careful analysis of whether the case requires the court to address any specific issue that is constitutionally committed to another branch of government."

In another court ruling in a climate change lawsuit, a U.S. District Court judge recently dismissed a federal public nuisance lawsuit filed by the Alaskan native village of Kivalina against oil, coal and power companies. The ruling in that suit, which sought monetary damages so the Inupiat village could be relocated, concluded the matter was more appropriately left to politicians than judges, PointofLaw.com reports.

(This Federal Emergency Management Agency photo shows the severe damage to the Mississippi coast from Hurricane Katrina.)

user-pic

| Recommend: Vote 0 Votes | Email this entry

6 Comments

| Leave a comment

I would think this is a really tough case. There is a huge proximate cause problem. Assuming carbon emissions contribute to Global warming, which they almost certainly do, you then have to prove it is more likely than not that the Defendants caused the Hurricane and the hurricane caused the flooding. There were large, violent hurricanes long before fossil fuel use and some were more powerful than Katrina. The flooding was caused by a number of factors, including major losses in wetlands caused by dams upriver blocking siltation in the Delta, new shipping channels, decisions to build in former swamp areas and defects in the flood wall system.

I understand that it is suicidal to continue to overheat the planet, but what about the 150 million drivers in the US, who account for over 60% of our CO2 emissions? They burned the gas and made the CO2. Should they be joined as Defendants?

The Plaintiff gets to make a try here, but I can't see this working. It will be an interesting trial.

Katrina might have happened anyway. It's really hard to prove that this storm was caused to a 51% chance by a small group of oil companies, and not the rest of us, including the people along the Gulf Coast.

Oh boy, this will be good.

I find it hard to believe the global warming hoax contrived by a hand full of alarmist can cause or amplify any natural distaster. Maybe I should go after greenhouse gas emitters because my grass turns brown every summer, the sunburn suffered last once or twice a year or how the heat has afected my eyesight. There have been worse hurricanes and record tempuratures in the past, even before cars were invented.

This is just the beginning. The more evidence accumulates, and the more rich people get affected, the more lawsuits we can expect. Until the dam breaks, and it becomes unlawful to burn fossil fuels (except if you completely capture the CO2)

Sad to see that the carpet baggers have not left the South

Does that make me a defendant as I canot capture my exhaled co2.

Leave a comment