Abstract "Just after midnight on December 3, 1984, methyl isocante gas began leaking from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India (Hull & Kou, 1996)". What legal questions did this case portray? With this paper we will shed some light on what happened in the aftermaths of this tragedy, and explain the happenings from an International Business law perspective. On December 3, 1984, the Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) plant in Bhopal had a gas leak of a highly poisonous gas which led to the death of 3,800 people, and the injury of more than 100,000 people. UCIL was manufacturing fertilizer and needed the toxic gas methyl isocyanate (MIC). The plant produced this gas themselves, using Indian technology. With this method they had to …show more content…
This will only be done after the place of where to hold the proceedings are found. In deciding where to hear the complaint, it initially needs to be considered who has jurisdiction. The accident occurred in India, but since UOI argues that UCC is responsible for the accident, we need to look at who has jurisdiction over UCC. India would have jurisdiction if UCC had a minimum contact with India. Since UCIL was operating as a separate entity, the only contact UCC had in India, at the time of the accident, was that they owned 51% of UCIL. This is not enough minimum contact for Indian courts to claim jurisdiction over UCC. Hence, the US courts are the only court with jurisdiction over UCC, since it is a US corporation in the US with no minimum contacts established in India. When we want to evaluate what forum is appropriate for this case, we should first look at who has jurisdiction in the matter. If several entities had jurisdiction, there might be one forum more appropriate than the other. In this case though, the US court is the only court with jurisdiction over the UCC. US courts agreed with UCC and dismissed the case based on forum non convenience, because the accident occurred in India, witnesses, sources of proof and documents were located in India. Records was almost entirely in Hindi, the witnesses for the most part did not speak English and could not be required to appear in a court of the US like in India. A viewing would be easier
In reference to the case study, subject matter jurisdiction could possibly apply. Since Margolin suit claims negligence on the parts of Novelty Now and Funny Faces for using PYR in their product the case could be heard in a federal claims court. The violation of FDA regulations makes the case a stronger candidate for this type of venue.
Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)
This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the definition and analysis of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 2. Next, this review will analyze the business effects of the case as they relate to the monetary bottom line and Stylarama’s attempt to protect his profits. Finally, it will highlight
Kroger’s lawyer sues Omaha Public Power (state court?) for wrongful death Omaha Power decides to implead Owen Equipment Omaha Power successfully seeks summary judgment (b/c Paxton and Vierling owned power lines, Omaha Power has no responsibility unless notified, and they weren’t notified) Kroger’s lawyer asserts wrongful death claim against Owen Equipment and goes for federal court claiming diversity jurisdiction b/c Kroger from Iowa and Owen Equipment is Nebraska corporation with principal place of business there) trial begins but Owen Equipment says no diversity because though incorporated in Nebraska, principal place of business is in Iowa district court refuses to grant Owen’s motion to dismiss and Kroger wins jury verdict (court says supplemental jurisdiction extends to Kroger’s claim against Owen) Owen appeals judgment reversed in favor of Owen
Two wastes that resulted from this production were coal tar and purified waste. Coal tar was a formation of less volatile chemical compounds. Coal tar’s sole purpose was for roofing and road building material. Scientists taking coal tar as a starting point developed other uses. Manufactured gas plants were creating more coal than they could find buyers for and eventually formed an emulsion with water. The tar produced spills and leaks over decades of operation. Chemicals found in coal tar were anthracene, fluorene, napthalene, pyrene and many others (dec.ny.gov). Sulfur and cyanide compounds that were being removed through purifier beds consisting of lime or wood chips formed purifier waste. Reactions took place between the gas and purifier material corroding gas pipes, stoves and lighting fixtures. Purifier beds would eventually fill up with tar and become unusable. Having to dispose of the material, the waste had a strong odor and the wood chips would ignite if left uncovered. The purifier waste would either be shipped to landfills or fill low-lying areas on premises. The cyanide compound found in purifier waste contaminated groundwater away from the burial location. The water that became affected was highly acidic and caused harm to fish and
As for subject matter jurisdiction, this is the power the court may have to hear cases of a
&his would not apply as the plainti' lives in New (ork. $owever" the long)arm statute could be enacted to gain jurisdiction over Funny Face who originates out of California *+ubasek" p. ,-./ubject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. /ubject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. Federal courts deal with admiralty" bankruptcy" disputes of state against state" disputes against the 0./." disputes of federal law" etc. None of these categories apply. 1 diversity)of)citi2enship case must meet both re#uirements that the plainti' does not livein the same state as the defendant" and the case controversy issues cannot e!ceed 345"666. &his could apply as both parties reside in di'erent states" and if there is a product safety concern" medical costs and damages could easily e!ceed 345"666 *+ubasek" p. ,,.7inimum contacts is the contact re#uired between a party and a state in order for the courts of that state to constitutionally assert power
Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)
Unocal case started in 1996 and represents itself a suit from four Burmese villagers against Unocal Corporation and its parent company, Union Oil Company of California, in accordance with the Law on Aliens Tort Claims Act. The claim involved various human rights violations, including forced labor, false imprisonment, assault and negligence by military people ( who was hired to protect the project), by relations to building a gas pipeline project in Myanmar. In the year 1997, the U.S. federal district court in Los Angeles agreed to hear Doe v. Unocal backed by the fact that corporations and their officials can be held legally responsible, in conformity with the Law on Aliens Tort Claims for violations of international human rights in foreign countries and that American courts have the right to decide on these requirements (Escr-net.org., 2002). After three years of findings the plaintiffs showed the court evidences, which contains an information that Unocal knew that military committed illegal acts against villagers and subjected the entire villages to relocate themselves for the benefit of the
The Third Circuit erred in finding VHI have third-party standing, and his lower court’s decision should be reversed. In general, litigants do not have a standing to assert the rights of others, unless the litigant meet the constitutional and prudential requirement of third party standing. Litigants does not meet constitutional limitation of third party standing unless they sustain or will sustain injury that is actual and imminent. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 108 (1998). Moreover, Litigants does not meet prudential requirement of third party standing unless litigants share a close relationship with the right holders, or unless the right holders have a genuine obstacle to sue by their own. Amato v. Wilentz, 952 F.2d 742, 749 (3rd Cir. 1991). Under this analysis, VHI does not have a third party standing because VHI does not meet either constitutional or prudential requirement of third party standing.
The case seems to be strait forward with the fact that State is at fault for the
Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)
Race, class, gender, pragmatism, social justice, and other sociological factors play an important role in many tort cases as well. There are many tort law perspectives by which a tort case can be analyzed namely: Law and Economics; Corrective Justice; Critical Race Theory; Critical Feminism; Pragmatism; and Social Justice. In this essay I am mainly bringing out the facts of the tragedy and the importance of Law and Economic Perspective, which favors an industry such as the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in this case, and also the Social Justice Perspective, which speaks in favor of the people of Bhopal.
Three causes of the 1984 Bhopal Chemical Plant disaster in India were long-term financial difficulties, poor safety management and inadequate emergency plans. The disaster occurred when water entered a methyl isocyanate (MIC) storage tank, which led to a runaway reaction and then discharged toxic MIC vapour into the atmosphere. The leak caused the deaths of more than 2,000 people and injured about 200,000 locals in the surrounding shanty towns (Kletz 2009, p. 338).
Generally speaking, the legal system didn¡¦t play a very active role in this case. First of all, the India government could do more on digging the truth of the gas leak out and set a more strict standard to regulate such dangerous