Who Do I Sue?

[Lord Tammerlain]

This is a thread started due to some posters believes that sueing companies is a better means of environment protection then having the government set regulatory restrictions.

I will present a few cases of some rather extreme environmental issues, to which the questions posed would be

1. Who do I sue
2. What do I sue them for, in many cases what was done was not illegal, and typically for you to sue somebody theg must have done something wrong to begin with

Great Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Smog of '52 or Big Smoke[1] was a severe air pollution event that affected London, England, during December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants mostly from the use of coal to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It endured from Friday 5 to Tuesday, 9 December 1952, and then dispersed quickly after a change of weather.

Although it caused major disruption due to the effect on visibility, and even penetrated indoor areas, it was not thought to be a significant event at the time, with London having experienced many smog events during the past, so called "pea soupers". During the succeeding weeks however, medical reports estimated that 4,000 had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the number of fatalities was considerably greater at about 12,000.[2]

It is considered the worst air pollution event of the history of the United Kingdom,[3] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2] It caused several changes of practice and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956

Say I lost my father and child to this event, who do I sue and over what? Doing what was legal and widespread? What will the court do award me damages from everyone one in London, set environment regulations that limit the amound of polution?


Yokkaichi asthma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1955, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry began its policy to transition Japan's primary fossil fuel source from coal to petroleum. To accomplish that goal, construction of the Daichi Petrochemical Complex was begun in 1956. The complex contained an oil refinery, a petrochemical plant, and a power station. This was the first petrochemical complex constructed in Japan.[2]

In 1960, the government of Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda accelerated the growth of petrochemical production as part of its goal to double individual incomes of Japanese citizens over a 10 year period.[2] Also in 1960, MITI announced that a second complex was to be constructed on reclaimed land in northern Yokkaichi. The second complex went online in 1963. As demand for ethylene and other petrochemicals rose, a third complex was constructed which began production in 1972.[2] Yokkaichi transferred its energy production from coal to oil more quickly than the rest of the nation. The oil used in Yokkaichi was primarily imported from the Middle East, which contained 2% sulfur in sulfur containing compounds, resulting in a white-colored smog developing over the city.[3]

 

[Deuce]

Further complicating things: of those who died, how many of them can you prove were a direct result of the smog? The smog didn't kill your average, healthy adult. Those who did die probably were old and sick, or very young, or had some other underlying health condition that made them more susceptible to the smog. Even if you did manage to point a finger at some company, they most absolutely would hire their expert witnesses to testify that the smog wasn't the cause of the death, it was actually the underlying asthma! Why didn't he or she wear a mask? Maybe you shouldn't try to raise a child in a dense urban environment, you terrible, negligent parent!

The free market is great for most things, but limiting pollution is not one of those things. Certain market forces have to be present for it to work out in favor of the people, and those forces are not present in this scenario.

 

[MaggieD]

This is a thread started due to some posters believes that sueing companies is a better means of environment protection then having the government set regulatory restrictions.

You went to a lot of work here to convince idiots, Lord Chamberlain. Good post.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You went to a lot of work here to convince idiots, Lord Chamberlain. Good post.

It is a thread in response to one specific poster Henrin, who if i have not misunderstood him feels the courts would be the better method to solve such issues