From BusinessInsurance.com:
Supreme Court won’t hear global warming case
WASHINGTON —The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday not to review a pivotal global warming case brought by coastal residents seeking damages for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
In Ned Comer et al. vs. Murphy Oil USA et al., a group of Mississippi property owners alleged that greenhouse gas emissions of Murphy Oil USA—through more than 100 oil, coal and chemical companies—contributed to climate change and furthered the property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
…
A federal district court in Mississippi dismissed the assertions on grounds that they presented a political question that could not be decided by the courts. However, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the lower court’s ruling in October 2009 and allowed the claims to proceed.
=============================================================
more here:
http://www.businessinsurance.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110110/NEWS/110119986
This bit of good news comes to us thanks to WUWT reader Paul from Sweden.
Awww. Voodoo Law fails.
I speculate these victims were urged by environmental groups to start this class action in order to set a legal precedent. Given the current state of ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge among the general public, it will only be a matter of time before they start winning these court cases. (It only takes a handful of very crafty lawyers.)
For anyone interested, here is the opinion from the Mississippi court of appeals explaining why they permitted the case to go to the US Supreme Court: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV0.wpd.pdf
People should be very concerned about this. Once they establish precedent, they will start using the law to inhibit our energy consumption and this will affect every facet of our lives. They are going to create a world where people cannot afford to heat their homes, where only the rich can enjoy priviledges like travel (including owning a personal car) or imported food (i.e. fruit in winter).
The real sad part is it got that far in the legal system in the first place. It should of been thrown out immediately by a lower court..
Let’s sue NASCAR too when it comes to Mississippi due to all the carbon dioxide that’s given off by high revving engines redlining and smoking tires which are probably made out of oil from Murphy’s.
One must recognize that SCOTUS denies about 95% of the petitions for review (appeals) that are filed. Frequently, the denial is due to the lack of the development of facts and legal issues in the case rather than approval of the lower court’s decisions.
The Court’s decision may well be a blessing in disguise. Now the Plaintiffs have to prove that anthropogenic global warming exists and is distinguishable and quantifiable separately from natural climate variability; and that AGW results from CO2 emissions whose effects damage legally protected interests of the plaintiffs.
I doubt that the climate models will be admissible as evidence because their output are speculative and hypothetical. Some expert opinion testimony too may suffer the same fate because it is largely based upon poorly understood aspects of climate science and fraught with speculation.
I doubt that the claimants can prove the all of the essential elements of their case.
Watched BBC news with video from Brisbane. A smiling chap was drinking beer on his balcony and smiling. Why? He had one of those houses built on 2 metre high stilts and the water had another half metre or so to go before reaching him. Maybe all the houses should have been built like that.
john gault says:
Sue big oil over global warming. Talk about opening Pandora’s box. I almost want to see it happen
I’m long past almost. I’m ready to head to the gulch. Let them live with the world they create.
—————————————————————
kcrucible says:
The next step is accepting their assertion, solely for the sake of arguement, and then calculating what percentage of the temperature rise between say 1940 and katrina is attributable to this oil company (divide total warming by number of barrells of oil sold in the world. Multiply by the fraction that this company sold compared to the total consumed over the past 70 years.) Once you have that, you split the liability between the supplier and the consumers… say 40% liability for the supplier. You’ll end up with a tiny amount that is likely smaller than the legal fees to mount the case.
And that amount is totally irrelevant to any award given in the case. Let’s say that the jury finds them liable for actual damages of $10. Then, they tack on punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000,000 or more. That’s the way these sort of trials work.
And that’s IF the jury accepts that the sale of oil has caused the destruction.
Have you paid any attention to such trials in the past? I would bet a month’s salary on that verdict.
On the flip side, you can demonstrate that if this oil company had not provided oil, the financial repercussions that would exist to both katrina victims and all other serviced, etc.
That won’t fly, because everyone will want to “stick it to” the “evil oil company” who just lines their pockets by raising the price of gas whenever they feel like making a few billion dollars more.
Really, a jury would have to be insane to find against them.
Agreed. Problem is, so many juries seem to be rather insane when it comes to cases like this.
Roy says:
January 12, 2011 at 1:34 am
Professor Neville Nicholls at Monash University and president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society is quoted as saying:
“The extent to which any of this – the floods, warm oceans, or very strong La Niña – is linked to global warming is unknown, because the requisite studies to test this have simply not been done yet.”
========================================================
Perhaps Nicholls should just look at the flood record.
Current peak height of flood Brisbane River around ~4.5 m (moderated somewhat by the dam constructed since 1974)
Flood peak in 1974 ~5.5m
Flood peak in 1893 ~8.5m !
Global warming in 1893 – virtually none.
Conclusion: the impact is due to La Nina and nothing to do with CO2 level or “global warming.”
All forms of fertilizer is amazing stuff, including…..
TimC, thanks for providing this comment. I was a bit panicked until I read it.
This post really should be corrected because its current wording is 180 degrees off.
@ur momisugly Tony, and John Gault, I cannot determine which wrote above about the actual damages of $10 and punitive damages of $10,000,000,000 or more.
The USA’s legal system does not work like that. Since 2003, punitive damages are limited to a small multiple of compensatory damages. The small multiple must be a single digit, that is, from 1 to 9. Higher multipliers are for the most reprehensible actions by defendant.
That is one reason why Exxon labored so long in the courts over the Exxon Valdez punitive damages appeals.
Roger Sowell
@ur momisugly Tony, and John Gault, I cannot determine which wrote above about the actual damages of $10 and punitive damages of $10,000,000,000 or more.
That was me
The USA’s legal system does not work like that. Since 2003, punitive damages are limited to a small multiple of compensatory damages. The small multiple must be a single digit, that is, from 1 to 9. Higher multipliers are for the most reprehensible actions by defendant.
I don’t recall passage of that particular law, so I stand corrected with regard to that. However, I must ask: does this also apply to class-action suits?
Also, I’m quite sure a jury would find much more than $10 in actual damages.
(In case you can’t tell, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in a jury to actually understand and deal with facts of this sort. Happy to be proven wrong, however)
Tony,
The requirement of a single-digit multiplier for punitive damage awards was not a legislative law, but was decided in a US Supreme Court case from 2003, State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408.
The key phrase is :
“in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process. (See, e. g., 517 U. S., at 581.) Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State’s deterrence and retribution goals, than are awards with 145-to-1 ratios, as in this case.”
see http://supreme.justia.com/us/538/408/case.html
Most of the deaths from the Queensland floods have been from people in cars trying to cross flooded roads and bridges and from the extreme flash flooding event in the Toowomba range area where there are still numbers of people mssing. The Gympie flood was less than past floods,no deaths and the Traveston Dam was always a dumb idea- a broad shallow dam covering a lot of farm land and needing relocation of roads with almost no flood mitigation potential. It would have been more sensible to raise the existing dam and dam other headwaters. I am not against dams and ones like the Mitchell River in Victoria would have been better and cheaper than desalination plants. Unfortunately they took the advice of our warmist tainted experts that it was never going to rain again. They don’t reply when I explain to them that the greenhouse gas is still water vapour 93%. We are trying to find the person who prayed for rain! Geoff Broadbent
I believe the Brisbane floods are possibly avoidable, or certainly can be greatly minimised in future years, but only if the yardstick for the erection of flood mitigation dams are kept in place. I understand that this means that the dams should get no more than about 60 % full in the immediate period leading up to a La Nina event, before deliberate release of water downstream.
Many people believe the flooding signs were in place weeks, if not months ago, in that Australia would experience a strong La Nina event in Queensland over the current summer period. Bob Tisdale seems to know ENSO consequences very well, and I believe that he should be more widely consulted by the Queensland water authorities.
I have had 70+ years of North Queensland weather experience to draw upon as a knowledge base. The city of Townsville has been hugely successful in flood control
when one considers that prior to the 1950 period the flood plain that it is largely built upon used to be covered by a metre or more of water during La Nina events in Queensland. Only 150 kms.north of Townsville is the city of Ingham, and it is often flooded badly, as it has been for the past 2 years.
This could be again controlled by a flood mitigation dam downstream of the Blencoe falls on the Herbert River, but it will not happen as it is now a world heritage area.
I feel sorry for the Ingham residents every summer period.
Roger – thanks for the clarification, and the reference is appreciated!
@Tony
And that amount is totally irrelevant to any award given in the case. Let’s say that the jury finds them liable for actual damages of $10. Then, they tack on punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000,000 or more. That’s the way these sort of trials work.
Punitive damages are to punish reckless and knowingly anti-social behavior in order to keep them from attempting to do it again, thinking that the punishment is cheap compared to the rewards. Hiding the fact that your car blows up, that your product will cause cancer, etc. Punitive damages won’t be assessed against a company doing everything within their power to obey the law, be a good provider to the community, etc.
What would punitive damages accomplish? Preventing anyone from ever selling Oil again? That’s a GOOD thing?? No jury would go for that.
Sounds to me like the only reason that SCOTUS refused to hear this case is that they have already taken up a similar global warming/nuisance case from the Northeast. SCOTUS can do that; their jurisdiction here is strictly discretionary. What I worry about is that they will allow a nuisance rationale – a way for the doctrine of nuisance to regulate CO2 by judicial fiat, without regard to the science of CO2 and of climate, and without regard to the simple fact that the common law of America is ill-equipped to deal with this issue – it simply becomes a redistribution-of-wealth scheme. The result will be economic chaos and disaster.
Yep! I admit – I can’t keep up Richie!!
…………………………….
RichieP says:
January 12, 2011 at 5:07 am
CVH says:
“Focussing on CO2 driven “Climate Change” (SORRY! – Climate DISRUPTION!) ”
Come on CVH, keep up, keep up – it’s climate CHALLENGES now, don’t you know?. Disruption is *so last week. 🙂
………………………………
These warmists have more verbal twists and turns than a stick of liquorice
;0)
kcrucible says:
Punitive damages are to punish reckless and knowingly anti-social behavior in order to keep them from attempting to do it again, thinking that the punishment is cheap compared to the rewards. Hiding the fact that your car blows up, that your product will cause cancer, etc. Punitive damages won’t be assessed against a company doing everything within their power to obey the law, be a good provider to the community, etc.
What would punitive damages accomplish? Preventing anyone from ever selling Oil again? That’s a GOOD thing?? No jury would go for that.
Well, we’ve discussed the actual precedent regarding the awarding of punitive damages – but you have to question WHY the court had to make such a ruling.
What you’re talking about is theory. The fact is often quite different. Punitive damages can be assessed often on an emotional rather than a rational basis. The infamous McDonald’s coffee case is an excellent example of this. While the finding of fault in that case is not quite so outrageous as it may seem on the surface, there is little rational support for an award of $3,000,000 in punitive damages. (While the judge reduced that amount in this case, that doesn’t always happen) The jury didn’t make their decision using the rationale you cite – they based it on emotion.
The general public is so brainwashed with anti-oil, anti-corporation, and AGW propoganda from the MSM, I can easily see things getting quite out of hand in a case like this.
Just for the record, Katrina had nothing to do with the flooding of New Orleans… it was just the slight shake that brought down the house of cards. When the Army Corps of Engineers is declared liable by the courts, you know you are getting a bit closer to the real cause. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/us/louisiana.katrina.lawsuit_1_lower-ninth-ward-new-orleans-east-ruling?_s=PM:US
If something is built poorly and then poorly maintained, it should be no surprise that it won’t pass the test.
@Tony
What you’re talking about is theory. The fact is often quite different. Punitive damages can be assessed often on an emotional rather than a rational basis. The infamous McDonald’s coffee case is an excellent example of this. While the finding of fault in that case is not quite so outrageous as it may seem on the surface, there is little rational support for an award of $3,000,000 in punitive damages. (While the judge reduced that amount in this case, that doesn’t always happen) The jury didn’t make their decision using the rationale you cite – they based it on emotion.
On the contrary, this is an excellent example of the use of punitive damages. They weren’t trying to “stick it to the man”, the plaintif’s lawyer was asking the jury to hit McDonalds with a judgement that would force them to lower the temperature of the coffee so that it wouldn’t happen again.
The plaintif’s lawyer basically argued that McDonald’s knew that the coffee was too hot, could cause burns if it spilled, but ignored safety in pursuit of the dollar (because a lot of people buy to take it to work and they want it still hot when they get there.)
Now, we can argue over whether it’s reasonable, but the idea of the punitive damage is to force a change in behavior on the part of the defendant.
The general public is so brainwashed with anti-oil, anti-corporation, and AGW propoganda from the MSM, I can easily see things getting quite out of hand in a case like this.
A good defense lawyer would make it clear what would end up happening if the verdict happened. Rationing at best, refusal to sell more likely. The defense lawyer would ask if anyone on the jury drives. Would they like to be paying $12 per gallon because of the scarcity of gasoline? How would they feel about having their grandmother in New England unable to afford to heat her house in the dead of winter?
Sure, if they have an incompetant lawyer things could go badly, but the defense can pull at the emotional strings too.
@kcrucible
We may have to agree to disagree on this one – I just don’t have that much faith in juries. Hopefully, this never becomes an issue, so neither of us will ever have to find out for sure who was right.