Sideways News

Is there really a case for litigation following Katrina?

The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, along the Gulf Coast of the USA and most catastrophically in New Orleans, Florida, has led to it being classed as one of the deadliest hurricanes to have been recorded – and the scale and cost of the damage caused has caused some to classify it as the largest natural disaster to befall the nation.

The death toll resulting from the hurricane was in excess of 1,800: the material cost was estimated at $110 billion. New Orleans was the hardest city hit: the city’s levee system was breached, allowing floodwaters to submerge the city.

Questions were asked of many people after the disaster: the police, the government, FEMA, and the National Guard. But this year, in October, charges were brought by New Orleans residents against a collection of energy and insurance companies, in a case known as Comer, et al vs. Murphy Oil USA.

The charge sheet
The crux of the case is that energy companies caused excessive greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn raised the air and water temperature off the Gulf Coast – where Katrina grew in strength, specifically, in the Gulf of Mexico.

It’s been a contentious issue as to whether or not the case would ever make it to court at all, but in October the courts gave the action the go-ahead – effectively giving the residents of New Orleans who’d brought the case the right to sue. Upon first being presented, the case was dismissed: last month’s reinstatement followed an appeal which overturned the original ruling that the allegations were untenable.

Further delays in the lawsuit’s inception hinged on a number of issues – namely, that in order to make their case stick, the plaintiffs needed to stack up a formidable array of allegations and accusations, covering a number of areas. Of these, it was agreed that the action could focus on the following misdemeanours: public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence.

An unnatural disaster?
Nobody knows how the case will turn out. The fact that the courts have allowed it to be brought in the first place is a landmark decision in itself – particularly when we consider that a case which was set up along similar lines, Kivalina vs. ExxonMobil Corp, was nipped in the bud.

It was alleged that the Alaskan village of Kivalina, which is slowly being submerged as water levels rise, was being directly affected by the actions of a named group of companies – in this instance, unluckily for the village’s inhabitants, it was decided that there was no way to prove that this might even be provable.

With this unfortunate, but still valid argument in mind, it’s possible to assuage the doubts of those who feel as if the New Orleans lawsuit will pave the way for more spurious, difficult-to-prove cases which seek to point the finger and demand money following natural disaster and human tragedy.

But it will almost certainly cause us to consider our views on natural disasters – analysing where, along the chain of events which lead to disasters, a degree of artificial involvement caused or exacerbated the devastating proceedings.

Such a case will also force a judgement on scientific evidence for global warming – something which is frequently disputed. It will also force those involved to continually revisit the scale of the suffering. It’s been remarked upon frequently that a natural disaster is only a disaster if humans are involved – but to force a decision on whether or not circumstances render a disaster worthy of compensation might seem like trivialising tragedy.

If cases like this become a frequent occurrence, it seems as if anything less than an absolute and total victory would be something of a Pyrrhic victory for those involved.

SIDEWAYS News for fresh perspectives