SEIZE BP!!!
By any number of economic, social and moral requirements, the assets of BP should be seized and used to provide comprehensive compensation and relief for those who have lost their jobs and whose livelihoods, homes and communities have been severely harmed or destroyed, and to clean up and restore the environment.
There is also a legal basis underlying a call for seizure.
Under deeply-rooted and long standing legal principles, BP should be responsible for all consequence of damage, not merely direct oil removal costs.
The doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous or inherently dangerous activities has deep roots within the law. See e.g., Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H.L. 330 (1868) (landmark English tort law case applying the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities in a case where an engineer constructed a reservoir on land to supply power to his steam-powered textile mill, the tanks collapsed and caused others’ property to become flooded).
Much as a keeper of a wild animal is held strictly liable for any damage the animal causes, regardless of fault, the doctrine of strict liability has been applied to industrial hazards, including drilling for oil. See, e.g., Green v. General Petroleum Corp., 205 Cal. 328 (1928) (case imposing strict liability, without showing of fault, upon oil drilling company that experienced well “blow-out” that spewed a steady stream of oil, gas, mud and rocks into the air for 24 hours, causing substantial damage).
Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities has been imposed, for example, on companies engaged in the transportation of toxic chemicals, activities involving poisonous gases, involving hazardous wastes, fireworks displays, deployment of rockets, etc.
Standing in the way of the imposition of strict liability is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 33 U.S.C. §2701, et seq. Enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill, OPA was created by industry-friendly lawmakers so that it would immunize oil drilling corporations for the economic damages from catastrophic accidents or spills.
Under the OPA, an offshore oil drilling corporation that creates an environmental catastrophe is responsible only for direct removal costs of the spillage, and is immunized from liability for all other economic damages in excess of $75 million. 33 U.S.C. §2704(a)(1)(3).
They pay $75 million and get to walk away free. That’s a great deal for the oil companies, but it’s bad for our communities, it’s bad for the environment, and it makes the future even more perilous because they can pay a pittance and do it again.
SEIZE BP!!!
The Nattering One muses...
Bush and Obama bailed out and let the insurance co's, bankers and their Wall Street masters off the hook.
Don't let these greedy oil baron seven sisters bastards do the same.
Click on the link at the top of this blog to do the following:
1. inform yourself
2. sign the petition
3. automatically send a letter to your representatives in congress
Do it for your country, your children and yourself.
There is also a legal basis underlying a call for seizure.
Under deeply-rooted and long standing legal principles, BP should be responsible for all consequence of damage, not merely direct oil removal costs.
The doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous or inherently dangerous activities has deep roots within the law. See e.g., Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H.L. 330 (1868) (landmark English tort law case applying the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities in a case where an engineer constructed a reservoir on land to supply power to his steam-powered textile mill, the tanks collapsed and caused others’ property to become flooded).
Much as a keeper of a wild animal is held strictly liable for any damage the animal causes, regardless of fault, the doctrine of strict liability has been applied to industrial hazards, including drilling for oil. See, e.g., Green v. General Petroleum Corp., 205 Cal. 328 (1928) (case imposing strict liability, without showing of fault, upon oil drilling company that experienced well “blow-out” that spewed a steady stream of oil, gas, mud and rocks into the air for 24 hours, causing substantial damage).
Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities has been imposed, for example, on companies engaged in the transportation of toxic chemicals, activities involving poisonous gases, involving hazardous wastes, fireworks displays, deployment of rockets, etc.
Standing in the way of the imposition of strict liability is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 33 U.S.C. §2701, et seq. Enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill, OPA was created by industry-friendly lawmakers so that it would immunize oil drilling corporations for the economic damages from catastrophic accidents or spills.
Under the OPA, an offshore oil drilling corporation that creates an environmental catastrophe is responsible only for direct removal costs of the spillage, and is immunized from liability for all other economic damages in excess of $75 million. 33 U.S.C. §2704(a)(1)(3).
They pay $75 million and get to walk away free. That’s a great deal for the oil companies, but it’s bad for our communities, it’s bad for the environment, and it makes the future even more perilous because they can pay a pittance and do it again.
SEIZE BP!!!
The Nattering One muses...
Bush and Obama bailed out and let the insurance co's, bankers and their Wall Street masters off the hook.
Don't let these greedy oil baron seven sisters bastards do the same.
Click on the link at the top of this blog to do the following:
1. inform yourself
2. sign the petition
3. automatically send a letter to your representatives in congress
Do it for your country, your children and yourself.
Comments