Japan's Tepco sued by US sailors over radiation

[xchrom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20856051


Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), owner of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, has been sued by eight US sailors over radiation exposure.

They claim that Tepco lied about the threat posed by the leaks after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami damaged the plant.

The sailors were involved in relief operations after the natural disasters.

They have each sought $10m (£6m) in compensatory damages and $30m in punitive damages from Tepco.

[djean111]

1. Good.

Plus, I would like to see a precedent set for when the old reactors start harming people here.
I wouldn't be surprised if more effort is being put into evading liability than in actually making the reactors more safe.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Did the DoD send them?

If it did. they don't have a chance.

[PamW]

4. Correct!!

US military personnel have limited rights to sue ( if any ) if they are ordered into harm's way by their service. It is expected that military personnel are going to be placed in harm's way; and hence they can't sue.

Additionally, TEPCO is essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the Japanese Government now.

The 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act FORBIDS US citizens from suing foreign governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act

The Act codified what the US Supreme Court had already upheld in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon in 1812, that private US citizens could not sue foreign governments in US Courts.

The Act contains exemptions for such crimes as state-sponsored assassination. However, these sailors are suing for a tort; they are suing for negligence, which is certainly not exempted from the Act.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

5. They aren't suing their superiors or the DoD.

So the first paragraph is meaningless.

On the second, depends on the liability exposure of state-controlled corporations in Japan. They might well have standing to sue. 'Essentially' is a moving target.

[PamW]

6. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

Evidently you don't know the law.

Members of the military have essentially ZERO rights to sue the Pentagon; but they also have limited rights to sue other entities. The US military may be ordered to go into harm's way. Suppose there is some danger that a reasonable person would avoid. The fact that reasonable people would avoid the harm limits the damage.

However, suppose someone doesn't act in a reasonable manner and enters harm's way. They are making the situation worse for themselves than it otherwise would have been. The culpability for this increase in risk lies with the person putting themselves in harm's way; and not the originator of the danger.

US military personnel may be ordered into an area for some reason that a reasonable person would avoid. Therefore, it is the military leaders that assume the risk; but they are immune from being sued. The originator of the harm is not responsible for the decisions of the military leaders.

Therefore, as a matter of laws passed by Congress; the military personnel are limited in filing lawsuits in Court for being in harm's way when they were ordered to be there.

NO - it doesn't depend on Japanese law. The military personnel are US citizens subject to US laws; and they are precluded by US law from suing.

Even if Japanese law allows Japanese citizens to sue their government; these US citizens first have to answer to US law, and US law precludes them from suing. It's not the Japanese law that tells them they can't sue, it's the US Congress and US Supreme Court that say they can't sue.

PamW

[happyslug]

7. Those laws ONLY apply to US Courts.

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

You can sue in Japanese courts as can US Sailors. The law cited only forbids lawsuits in US Courts against Foreign Nations it does NOT forbid US Citizens from suing in the courts of the Country in Question.

After I read the above, I re-read the Article and the lawsuit is in San Diego, thus the case should be dismissed UNLESS the court ruled that the defendant is NOT the Japanese government but the PRIVATE company that ran the Plant. The real test is Jurisdiction, what does a San Diego Court has the right to hear the case as opposed to a Japanese court? The answer is nothing, thus unless some thing happened in California (and caused by the Defendant NOT that the Sailors sailed from San Diego) the California Court has NO JURISDICTION and this case should be dismissed OR transferred to a Japanese Court.

[PamW]

11. Thanks for getting up to speed...

You can sue in Japanese courts as can US Sailors. The law cited only forbids lawsuits in US Courts against Foreign Nations it does NOT forbid US Citizens from suing in the courts of the Country in Question.

Well that is what we were discussing. We are discussing a lawsuit in US Courts filed in San Diego.

From your second paragraph; I see you checked the facts under discussion.

Thanks for getting up to speed.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

8. You should really think things through before you start screaming 'WRONG' at people.

We were ASKED to assist by the Japanese Government. The case will hinge on whether TEPCO lied to us, and possibly whether the Japanese Government lied to us about the true risk involved.

We didn't just wander in of our own accord, or in a military action, against the Japanese Government's wishes, and they provided us an estimate of risk, which these soldiers allege was not truthful.

[caraher]

9. Is anyone on this subthread a lawyer?

While logic is used in law extensively, the law itself is rarely logical. I think the only way we'll learn whether the sailors have legal standing to sue is by seeing how this proceeds.

Never confuse the legal standing of the case (about which I profess no understanding) with its scientific merits (which appear negligible in this instance).

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I completely agree.

Who knows, some 200 year old maritime law might raise it's head out of nowhere, like Cthulhu, and eat everyone in the courtroom.

I wouldn't even assume an expert on international law could accurately predict the outcome of this case, at this point. The courts will test it. It might get bounced from a court here, to a court in Japan. Hard to say.

[PamW]

12. Why the predilection for irrelevance...

Why the predilection for irrelevance?

Who cares who was "asked" or what motivated certain actions; as if the case turns on motives.

You will find that laws often don't care what motivates someone.

If a law or Supreme Court ruling forbids or proscribes some action; it matters not a whit what the motivation is.

It's a little like the recently decided case of "National Meat Association v. Harris"; a case decided unanimously by the US Supreme Court in a decision penned by Justice Kagan.

California passed a law saying that meat producers had to immediately euthanize "downer cows" ( beef cattle that were non-ambulatory due to illness ). The regulation of meat producers is a federal responsibility under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The California regulation interfered with activities regulated under federal law, and hence was unconstitutional under the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

California argued that it wasn't attempting to regulate meat production. California argued that it was motivated by concerns of the humane treatment of animals.

The US Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the California argument. California was trespassing on an area of federal responsibility, and Justice Kagan noted that a State could always "cook up" a motive for any sort of trespass on federal responsibility, thereby making a mockery of the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

The US Supreme Court said California's motive was not an issue. It doesn't matter why California was trespassing on an area of federal responsibility. California doesn't get to enact laws that it is Constitutionally forbidden to do, just because they had "good intentions".

California was trespassing on area of federal jurisdiction, and therefore was precluded from doing so; California's motives of "good intentions", notwithstanding.

Motives don't count a whit.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

13. And?

Keep in mind, this is in reference to international law, and foreign courts. Half the things you decried earlier don't even apply.

I think it's possible the suit will be tossed, at least in the court that it was filed. But that's just one possible path forward.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. A more interesting point would be

that Japanese courts tend towards compensatory remedy, not punitive. It is entirely unclear if any of these sailors were injured.

[wtmusic]

3. I hope Tepco countersues for fees

when they're unable to prove any damages.