Cross-posted from TortDeform.Com:
(Unidentified oil spill photo by the EPA)
What happens when a half a trillion dollar company creates an environmental disaster worse than the Exxon Valdez accident, leaving the soil in a Brooklyn neighborhood seeped with between four and twenty feet of cancer-causing, benzene-concentrated oil?
Well, 57 years later, residents of Greenpoint Brooklyn are still awaiting an answer to that question. New Yorkers are all too familiar with the Mobil (now ExxonMobil) spill, which occurred back in the 1950s to late 1940s. Since the spill was discovered back in 1978 (read history) the oil giants responsible for the fiasco have essentially sat on their hands. Basically nothing has happened to mitigate the extensive damage caused by this 17-30 million gallon spill.
According to this newsclip, five people on the same contaminated block have suffered from the same rare form of bone cancer. Coincidence or corporate crime? It could take decades to clean the oil, and even then, at least 50% of the pollution could remain. Watch the video; it is really informative and even includes an interview with local residents, some of whom have suffered from cancer due to exposure to chemicals escaping the oil.
In addition to one lawsuit filed by the environmental group Riverkeeperand one lawsuit filed by local residents, the New York State attorney general's office filed suit a few days ago against the companies involved in the spill. (See the Press Release and this New York Times article. Previous coverage can be found here.)
And rightly so. Big corporate interests often say people sue because they don't want to take responsibility; yet these same interest groups hide behind the corporate entity and the legal loopholes they've created when the time comes to take their own advice. ExxonMobil is no exception, as the company hasn't exactly had a clean track record when it comes to paying for the dirt it has done.
So why on earth would we not say the 500-billion-dollar company should be held responsible for damaging the environment and the lives of innocent people? Because plaintiff's lawyers--lawyers who will pour hours of time and energy into holding the corporate giant responsible for its misdeeds and its sluggish response--will earn money from their work on the lawsuit? Because the company, which issues fat compensation checks to retiring executives but won't spend a fraction of that money on cleaning up its colossal mess, will lose profits?
Perhaps from a free-market standpoint the "cost" of suing this company would render a lawsuit "inefficient"--I'm sure they could find a way to manipulate the argument and say that this would discourage other oil-barons from pursuing profits regardless of environmental impact, and that this is bad for the economy and lowers our standard of living. But, if we're only talking dollars, we ain't talking sense. What are the real costs involved? What are the costs to innocent taxpaying citizens whose lives are severely endangered simply because of where they live? What is my standard of living if I'm dead?
While we laugh at loony lawsuits, let's think about who is directing our attention to these pop tort stories and away from scrutinizing corporate "just us"-style justice and greed. Who wants us to think that our legal system is a shameful way to seek redress and to send a clear message to wrongdoers? Consumer advocacy groups that are dedicated to fighting for taxpayers? Civil rights groups? Environmental groups? No. It's the folks who stand to lose profits if people wise-up to corporate misconduct and resist measures that would limit our ability to control and curb it through the court system.
There are bigger fish to fry than a few bad lawsuits: half-a-trillion-dollar, chemically polluted fish that you probably shouldn't eat. And you fry them with a civil justice system that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, not "of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation."