|
There can be little doubt that BP is going to be liable for a vast amount damages arising out of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill that began on April 20, 2010. The difficulty will be in determining whether damages were proximately caused by the spill. For example, it will be more difficult for an inland hotel to prove that the oil spill caused a loss of business than it will be a hotel on an oil-ravaged coastline to prove that the spill caused a loss of business.
No doubt, some claims against BP will be so patently lacking in merit that they should be immediately dismissed. Consider, for example, the case of the Ramblin Wreck. On April 20, 2010, three friends decided to take their boat, the Ramblin Wreck, out into the Gulf of Mexico for three days of fishing. While out to sea, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck noticed a distant oil rig which appeared to be on fire. After quickly tuning their radio, they picked up a distress call from a crew member of the Deepwater Horizon explaining that the crew was abandoning the rig.
The Ramblin Wreck immediately responded to the distress call and hastened toward the Deepwater Horizon. While enroute, the crew prepared life jackets, pillows, and other supplies that would be used to help rescue any survivors.
After arriving, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck found another boat already on the scene along with a number of survivors who obviously needed medical attention. The Ramblin Wreck was asked to search for 10 to 15 people who were still missing. Unfortunately, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck only found debris.
The crew of the Ramblin Wreck continued to work throughout the night even though they feared for their own safety. But eventually they determined that they would be unable to locate any missing persons and discontinued their rescue attempt. As they were leaving, they claim that they were instructed to contact BP to receive compensation for the medical kit, fuel, and efforts following the tragic explosion.
Now, three months later, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck still have not received any compensation from BP.
The crew of the Ramblin Wreck has never explained what efforts they tood to get paid. What we do know is that they filed a lawsuit pretty quickly, and that their lawsuit is not limited to only obtaining the fair compensation they were promised. Instead, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck now claim that BP owes them an unspecified sum of money (presumably very large) for emotional distress and punitive damages in addition to fair compensation for their rescue efforts.
It is a shame that the selfless behavior of the crew of the Ramblin Wreck is now being tarnished by a self-serving lawsuit that lacks any merit. Their claim that BP somehow owed a duty to the crew of the Ramblin Wreck (which was nowhere near the Deepwater Horizon until well after the explosion) and that BP breached this supposed duty by failing to properly operate the oil well is strange enough. But the theory of liability gets even stranger. The plaintiffs claim that BP's alleged negligent conduct caused them "emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it." In other words, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck is claiming that BP should pay them for merely witnessing the aftermath of a disaster at sea.
Certainly, one cannot doubt that the crew of the Ramblin Wreck experienced a tragic event and acted admirably in responding to pleas for help. But the crew of the Ramblin Wreck nevertheless acted voluntarily. If, as they claim, they were placed in danger by searching for missing persons in the vicinity of a buring oil rig, they alone are to blame. BP is not the cause of their actions because BP did not put them in that situation. Consequently, although BP no doubt owes them reasonable compensation for their time and materials used to help rescue survivors, the crew of the Ramblin Wreck has no claim that BP somehow violated their rights and safety.
Lawsuits such as this, which take otherwise legitmate claims and twist them in order to maximize the amount of money that can be extracted from an unpopular defendant, should be an embarrassement to attorneys who advocate for justice. It is, unfortunately, a sad fact of life that businesses large and small continue to be plagued by these lawsuits.
|
