2 Workers Hurt at Drilling Site Sue Company - Say Lax Oversight in PA contributed to situation

[Divernan]

Source: Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Thursday, April 28, 2011
By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Two men who were severely burned in a natural gas fire two months ago in Washington County claim in a lawsuit that lax oversight of Marcellus Shale gas drillers in Pennsylvania contributed to their injuries.

"The conscious disregard of the high degree of risk of physical harm to the plaintiffs . . . was, in part, the result of lax government regulation of Marcellus Shale gas drillers that has created an environment where drillers . . . believe that they can disregard commonly accepted industry standards and risk the health and safety of workers and local communities without accountability," said lawyer Chris Heavens in a lawsuit recently filed in a West Virginia Circuit Court against driller Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and two other companies.

"Chesapeake and Signal deliberately proceeded to act or fail to act in conscious disregard of, or indifference to, a high degree of risk of physical harm . . . and this conscious disregard was outrageous," said Mr. Heavens, who is seeking punitive damages, along with payment for medical bills, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.

The lack of government oversight was evident, Mr. Heavens said, in a March 21 letter sent by the state Department of Environmental Protection to drillers, including Chesapeake, asking them "to voluntarily adhere to best practices to control condensate vapors, rather than mandating and enforcing such best practices."



First published on April 28, 2011 at 9:58 am








Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11118/1142635-100.stm#ix...

---

The plaintiffs sued Chesapeake Appalachia (based in Oklahoma), H&H Oilfield Services (West Virginia) and Signal Completion Services (Texas), claiming they negligently failed to monitor flammable vapors at the sell site or make provisions for the storage and control of said vapors. Although the suit blames lax govt. oversight, there is no mention that the state or its agencies are named defendants. Governments can claim "sovereign immunity" from personal injury suits.

In Pennsylvania, there are statutory exceptions to a claim of immunity, but as I read them, lax regulatory oversight is not one of them. That is good in the sense that the taxpayers would end up paying for all legal costs the state incurred, as well as any damages awarded. Too bad GOP Governor Corbett cannot be sued personally.

[grntuscarora]

1. I hope these workers

get a HUGE pile of cash.

Pennsylvania reminds me of the Wild West these days...although the California Gold Rush was probably better regulated.

[Divernan]

2. If drillers are smart, they'll pay up to settle out of court - but I hope they don't

If this case proceeds, the discovery rules of the Pennsylvania court system will allow the plaintiffs to request tons of information, such as how many other workers in other states have been injured, under what circumstances, and whether the companies then initiated further safety rules/practices or not. The plaintiffs can also get information on which chemicals and in what amounts were used at the site, and ALSO information on the profits made by each company (since the suit includes a claim for punitive damages).

And whereas corporations have bought off most politicians, they cannot buy off a jury.

On edit: the suit was brought in West Virginia, not PA. I don't know what WV's discovery rules are like, but they should be pretty similar.

[happyslug]

3. But the State is NOT a party, thus the State will pay nothing

The accusation is more in the Nature for Punitive Damages for it show the Company KNEW the act was unsafe, that the STATE would have crack down on the Company if the State did its job, but since the State did NOT do its job AND the Company exploited that lack of regulations, the COMPANY should be punished for NOT doing what the Company would have done under proper state regulations.

This is NOT a case where the victim is suing the state for its failure to do its job, but an attempt to show the COMPANY relied on that lack of enforcement in the COMPANY'S effort to operate safely. This is more in the Nature of "If the State was involved, everyone would be wearing a hard hat, but since the state did NOT enforce that regulation and the Company to save money, knowing the state will NOT enforce that regulations, refused to buy hardhats for its employees, the employer should be PUNISHED with an award of Punitive Damages for violating a regulation, that the state should have enforced".

[Divernan]

4. Yup, t hat's what I said in the OP

The state of PA is NOT a party, and under the statutes of the state, there is no exception allowing the state to be made a party.