'Union Carbide has no liability in Bhopal tragedy'
29 Jun 2012 12:39 AM GMT
In a setback to 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims, a US court has held that neither Union Carbide nor its former chairman Warren Anderson were liable for environmental remediation or pollution-related claims at the firm's former chemical plant in Bhopal. The US district judge John Keena in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit accusing the company of causing soil and water pollution around the Bhopal plant due to the disaster.
The court ruled that it was Union Carbide India Ltd, and not its parent company Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) that was responsible for the generation and disposal of the waste that polluted drinking water, and the liability rests with the state government.
The plaintiffs Janki Bai Sahu and others had alleged that 'toxic substances seeped into a ground aquifer, polluting the soil and drinking water supply in residential communities surrounding the former Bhopal plant site'. They alleged that exposure to soil and drinking water polluted by hazardous waste produced Union Carbine India Ltd caused injuries.
'The summary judgement record certainly indicates that UCIL consulted with UCC about its waste disposal plans and on non-environmental business matter like its strategic plan. However, nothing in the evidence suggests the necessity of UCC's approval for the actions about which plaintiffs complain,' the court said in its order.
'Moreover, there is no evidence in this extensive record indicating that UCIL manufactured pesticides on UCC's behalf, entered into contracts or other business dealings on UCC's behalf, or otherwise acted in UCC's name,' it said.
The industrial accident, the worst in Indian history, led to the leak of poisonous methyl isocyanate, claiming thousands of lives in Bhopal.
In his written opinion, Judge Keenan concluded that even when viewing the evidence in the most favourable light for the plaintiffs UCC is not directly liable, nor liable as an agent of UCIL, nor liable under a veil-piercing analysis.
Citing a 1998 court verdict in a case involving KFC, the court said that legally the mere assertion that a corporate parent is or was involved in the decision-making process of its subsidiary, or that it controlled the legitimate policies of its subsidiary, will not shift liabilities among distinct corporate entities. 'Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that UCC's approval power extended beyond the strategic plan to other areas of UCIL's operations,' the court said.
The court observed that after the 1984 catastrophic gas leak claimed thousands of lives, the Government of India closed the Bhopal plant.
The court ruled that it was Union Carbide India Ltd, and not its parent company Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) that was responsible for the generation and disposal of the waste that polluted drinking water, and the liability rests with the state government.
The plaintiffs Janki Bai Sahu and others had alleged that 'toxic substances seeped into a ground aquifer, polluting the soil and drinking water supply in residential communities surrounding the former Bhopal plant site'. They alleged that exposure to soil and drinking water polluted by hazardous waste produced Union Carbine India Ltd caused injuries.
'The summary judgement record certainly indicates that UCIL consulted with UCC about its waste disposal plans and on non-environmental business matter like its strategic plan. However, nothing in the evidence suggests the necessity of UCC's approval for the actions about which plaintiffs complain,' the court said in its order.
'Moreover, there is no evidence in this extensive record indicating that UCIL manufactured pesticides on UCC's behalf, entered into contracts or other business dealings on UCC's behalf, or otherwise acted in UCC's name,' it said.
The industrial accident, the worst in Indian history, led to the leak of poisonous methyl isocyanate, claiming thousands of lives in Bhopal.
In his written opinion, Judge Keenan concluded that even when viewing the evidence in the most favourable light for the plaintiffs UCC is not directly liable, nor liable as an agent of UCIL, nor liable under a veil-piercing analysis.
Citing a 1998 court verdict in a case involving KFC, the court said that legally the mere assertion that a corporate parent is or was involved in the decision-making process of its subsidiary, or that it controlled the legitimate policies of its subsidiary, will not shift liabilities among distinct corporate entities. 'Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that UCC's approval power extended beyond the strategic plan to other areas of UCIL's operations,' the court said.
The court observed that after the 1984 catastrophic gas leak claimed thousands of lives, the Government of India closed the Bhopal plant.
Next Story
