A big win for the people vs the Frackers

[Jim Lane]

14. It's one victory, but a single jury verdict doesn't set a legal precedent.

Lawyers use the term "case law" to refer to decisions by judges (one judge or an appellate panel) on questions of law, which may arise in other cases. By contrast, jurors are asked to decide questions of fact based on the evidence presented at that particular trial. A jury verdict generally can't be cited in a subsequent action. (There are some exceptions where a party to the first action is also a party in the later action.)

This jury's finding that Aruba Petroleum Inc. intentionally created a nuisance that affected the property of Bob and Lisa Parr isn't binding in any way in any future case involving a different defendant. Even as to Aruba Petroleum, this verdict doesn't even mean that every other unhappy neighbor who sues it will automatically win.

Insurance companies will certainly take account of this verdict in issuing policies to other frackers, so it will do some good there. There might be a rise in premiums, although it's just one case so it probably won't produce a huge increase. Insurers might also study the case to see what Aruba did wrong. Based on that analysis, the insurers might develop some requirements that they insist any company agree to before being issued a policy. A development like that might somewhat mitigate the harms to neighboring landowners but wouldn't affect the issue of carbon dioxide emissions from fracking.