The Oil Spill Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

Really? Why would you think I was talking about Gross Negligence or the Legal System's definition of Negligence or proving anything for a claim or punitive damages? I was speaking in lay terms. You're absolutely correct that I don't know much about Negligence nor Gross Negligence nor even the US Tort system.But let's go there.As far as I can tell (and I am just doing a quick Internet scan here - I am NOT educated in this, just exploring) in legal terms: "Negligence" is failure to reasonable care, while "Gross Negligence" involves reckless disregard for the safety of others. In my mind, neither has been proven in the case of BP's actions in the Gulf.I'm no law talking guy, but I think that a plaintiff would still need to prove all of the elements of negligence and failure to use reasonable care in order to collect on a claim and certainly not just be able to rely on the terrible results to conclude negligence or gross negligence for punitive damages. Or am I way off here?

I mean, it's a reasonableness standard. Do you really think it is reasonable to drill a hole in the deep ocean for oil (on its face seems pretty dangerous/difficult) and not have any sort of plan to stop a spill? Or such wildly ineffective plans? That's my best lay explanation for it. Yes, someone will have to prove the elements of negligence. VBs point (I believe) is that given the result it is almost unimaginable that they could be found not negligent (because ordinary negligence is really not that high a hurdle). In my opinion, negligence here is pretty cut and dried. Gross negligence is possible; but we need to know a lot more before we can make that call. Gross negligence is a very high bar to meet.Also, a good thing to bear in mind is that the more dangerous the underlying activity (here, drilling for oil in the deep sea) the lower the bar for both negligence standards. BP is liable here and is admitting as much with the 20 billion fund.

[CaneBrain 95]

Nope. I just don't agree with your premise. This is like saying that an airline is negligent for putting a plane in the air and not having a plan in place to save the passengers when the wings fall off. They very well may be responsible for the results. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that it is silly to conclude that they were negligent because of the scope of the results instead of because of the actions that led to the results.

I hate to keep picking on you but airlines are basically strictly liable for crashes. Even if the plane is struck by lightning, they have to pay. On the flip side, they are basically immune to other kinds of lawsuits (particularly those involving collusion and price fixing) so it is not all bad.

[vbnautilus 48]

Nope. I just don't agree with your premise. This is like saying that an airline is negligent for putting a plane in the air and not having a plan in place to save the passengers when the wings fall off.

That certainly would be negligent. Do you not think we require airlines to have emergency procedures?

They very well may be responsible for the results. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that it is silly to conclude that they were negligent because of the scope of the results instead of because of the actions that led to the results.

These results require that certain actions did not occur, namely: 1. Having a working failsafe to prevent the well from becoming uncapped in the event of an accident2. Having a plan to deal with the scenario in which the well becomes uncappedIf you told me you were going to build a structure that would ruin the Gulf of Mexico if it happened to catch fire, I'd say you were being pretty reckless. But really this is mostly moot because we already know that they were negligent even in the way that you would require.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I hate to keep picking on you but airlines are basically strictly liable for crashes. Even if the plane is struck by lightning, they have to pay. On the flip side, they are basically immune to other kinds of lawsuits (particularly those involving collusion and price fixing) so it is not all bad.

Correct me if I am wrong, but negligent isn't the same as liable or responsible.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This is like saying that an airline is negligent for putting a plane in the air and not having a plan in place to save the passengers when the wings fall off...

That certainly would be negligent. Do you not think we require airlines to have emergency procedures?

Dude.Seriously?"Emergency Procedures" to save passengers if the wings fell off in mid-flight?

[CaneBrain 95]

Correct me if I am wrong, but negligent isn't the same as liable or responsible.

it's proper term is strict negligence.it's like a sliding scale; the more disastrous the potential outcome/the more inherent danger in the activity......the lower the bar for negligence. BP hits both of those triggers square on the nose.you can definitely make the argument that our tort system is too plaintiff friendly in a lot of areas.all crap aside, though, do you really think it was reasonable was drilling in the deep sea without some sort of plan to contain an explosion-caused spill? Especially considering the far-reaching implications of an oil spill? because if you don't think that is reasonable that's the ballgame right there without having to worry about anything else. and I can't see how anyone can think that is reasonable.

[vbnautilus 48]

Dude.Seriously?"Emergency Procedures" to save passengers if the wings fell off in mid-flight?

What, they should not have them? The plane falls into the ocean after taking off and you don't want life preservers on board? I only responded to your analogy out of courtesy. It's clearly not an analogous situation for many reasons. I gave it the benefit of the doubt that you were talking more generally about an airplane safety issue where an "accident" could lead to a catastrophic result without the proper failsafes. If you are really only interested in the specific case where the "wings fall off", that is just silly and irrelevant. You're ignoring the meat of my argument. But then again, you also ignored all the evidence that was presented to you about BP's negligence, so I don't think you are particularly interested in the truth of the matter here. Look, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I worked on an oil rig for about four years¹. I can tell you from experience that there is no way this situation would have happened if the proper precautions were taken. Seriously, though I can't really understand in what sense you do not think it is negligent to start drilling holes into the ground that might blow up and create an environmental catastrophe without having a plan for what you'll do in case it does. ¹OK, this is an small stretch. It was my brother that worked on the rig². But still, I visited him often and am quite familiar with oil rig safety procedures. ²This actually totally false. I have never known anyone who worked on an oil rig, and have absolutely no personal knowledge of their workings.

[slink 1]

BP is liable here and is admitting as much with the 20 billion fund.

With what's bound to be over a million affected, that equals 20K per. Hopefully there will more forthcoming.

[85suited 0]

Can we now make the claim that Barack Obama doesn't care about white people? LOLThe Federal Government is a slow moving no matter who is in Charge. The sooner people realize that the government is rarely the answer, the better off we will all be in the future.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I think we're just arguing semantics here, folks.

[All_In 0]

The typical republican view, all for big business, squash the 'little' people:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_20_billion_fund

[Jeepster80125 0]

The typical republican view, all for big business, squash the 'little' people:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_20_billion_fund

holy shit allin used a non aljazeera link!edit:Allin, it's quite apparent that you have little to no comprehension on anything.With that said, again, it's obvious that you didn't even read the very link you posted. Where do you get 'squash the little people'? Are you referring to the fact that a republican politician said, 'I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House'?How to you go from those nine words to 'squash the little people'? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, I just think you are an idiot, and no one really knows what the heck you are trying to say, ever.double edit:John Stewart just ruined both sides last night on the daily show. he showed clips of the last eight presidents saying we need to stop our dependence on foreign oil. It was great, and worth the time to find a clip imo.

[CaneBrain 95]

The typical republican view, all for big business, squash the 'little' people:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_20_billion_fund

while I agree that this lawmaker is a turd expecting someone from Texas to do anything but grovel at the feet of the oil companies is silly.Half the jobs in texas come from big oil.

[mk 11]

yeah, this airline analogy is ridiculous. 99.9% of the time a plane crashes due to a mechanical failure it is due to improper maintenance/negligence.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

¹²

Those footnotes were unreadable without quoting them.Kevin Costner will fix all of this!

[Jeepster80125 0]

The only time I remember a plane's wings literally falling off were in cases of older planes that were fighting fires, and in every case there was improper maintenance, which is negligent right?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The only time I remember a plane's wings literally falling off were in cases of older planes that were fighting fires, and in every case there was improper maintenance, which is negligent right?

OK. It was a "what if", not "remember when" scenario.The point is: V was saying that a company should have procedures in place when an accident occurs. Life preservers to save passengers when a plane falls apart. And that you could somehow conclude negligence because of the result rather than looking at the preceding actions that led up to the disaster. I find that ridiculous. All of you are sort of saying what I am saying. If the actions leading to the incident failed to incorporate reasonable care, such as poor maintenance, then that defines the negligence and helps prove the basic elements of negligence, it isn't the horrible outcome itself that define negligence.

[vbnautilus 48]

OK. It was a "what if", not "remember when" scenario.The point is: V was saying that a company should have procedures in place when an accident occurs. Life preservers to save passengers when a plane falls apart. And that you could somehow conclude negligence because of the result rather than looking at the preceding actions that led up to the disaster. I find that ridiculous. All of you are sort of saying what I am saying. If the actions leading to the incident failed to incorporate reasonable care, such as poor maintenance, then that defines the negligence and helps prove the basic elements of negligence, it isn't the horrible outcome itself that define negligence.

The point is that there are no sets of actions which could result in releasing that amount of oil that involve "reasonable care".Please describe a circumstance that leads to this particular result that does not involve negligence. I cannot see one.

[SweetDee 0]

Obama vowed that BP will have to repay workers and business owners harmed by BP's "recklessness"."Recklessness"?Really?Have we already jumped to this conclusion, that this is anything more than a terrible industrial accident? Have I missed evidence of BP behavior that has amounted to "recklessness"?Seems a little early to brand BP guilty of recklessness. I believe that they need to be held accountable and pay for clean up and compensation, but the President using the term "reckless" at this stage is reckless itself and reveals his agenda.

The worst part is the more he goes after them, the more he demands, the more he ratchets up the pressure, the more likely it is that BP will just go Bankrupt and reorganize and tell us to **** off. There will be a point that they can't reasonably earn their way out of this.

[El Guapo 8]

The point is that there are no sets of actions which could result in releasing that amount of oil that involve "reasonable care".Please describe a circumstance that leads to this particular result that does not involve negligence. I cannot see one.

A rouge wave comes through and destroys any evidence of a drilling platform ever being there and rips the pipeline out of the ocean floor.

[vbnautilus 48]

A rouge wave comes through and destroys any evidence of a drilling platform ever being there and rips the pipeline out of the ocean floor.

Then the failsafe should kick in, and if it doesn't, the relief well should be activated, and if that doesn't work, the premade cap would be lowered on immediately...Of course what really happened was they screwed up some gasket and decided it wasn't worth replacing because they'd rather not spend the money...but I'm sure BP are just victims in all this. I feel sorry for the CEO whose life has changed as result of all this witch hunting.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

A rouge wave comes through and destroys any evidence of a drilling platform ever being there and rips the pipeline out of the ocean floor.

Heh.Rouge - red or pink makeup in powder or cream form used to add color to the cheeks or lips or to accentuate the shape of the cheekbones

[vbnautilus 48]

Heh.Rouge - red or pink makeup in powder or cream form used to add color to the cheeks or lips or to accentuate the shape of the cheekbones

I thought he meant a wave that came by during a red tide. Those waves are the worst. We used to freak each other out on the rig by yelling "roooouge wave!" and watching everyone get into their evac gear but then it was a false alarm. Haha. Those were the days.

[El Guapo 8]

Heh.Rouge - red or pink makeup in powder or cream form used to add color to the cheeks or lips or to accentuate the shape of the cheekbones

You and your fancy spelling.

[All_In 0]

Where do you get 'squash the little people'? Are you referring to the fact that a republican politician said, 'I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House'?

wow, u r dense. try putting 2 and 2 together, please, it's not hard.he is criticizing the 20 bil fund, while it's there to help the people in the region.the 'little people' comment was a take on what BP said.

double edit:John Stewart just ruined both sides last night on the daily show. he showed clips of the last eight presidents saying we need to stop our dependence on foreign oil. It was great, and worth the time to find a clip imo.

i hate all your posts, but this is true.