Re: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingency Fees

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Title: Re: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingenc

>  
>
> Furthermore, as you point out, Mr. Lavely, in the TMI case, the NRC
>
> wasn't sure what to do, nor the State of PA, and the media exacerbated
>
> this situation with alarming news reports.  Perhaps the media
>
> should be sued for the intentional infliction of emotional
>
> distress...I wouldn't mind pursuing that legal theory either.
>
>  

> If PTSD is
>
> caused by an event where there is no actual physical harm from the
>
> agent causing the fear, then the person causing the event is not to
>
> blame, unless they are the ones that subsequently drum up the fear.
>
>  In the case of TMI, e.g., TMI causes the event, which causes no
>
> harm, but the NRC, the State of PA, the media, and the ignorance of
>
> the residents effectively create a state of panic.  Who's to
>
> blame?

>

Barbara,

I know I may be about twice your age, but you can call me Paul.

As usual, you made some great points!

As I understood, the above is true for IIED; however, as I understand the claim for negligent IED you do not need to show intent/malice and only need to show negligence and IED. For newspapers and news media you may need to show intent.

I am sure you can show that the media was not accurate; however, did they knowingly or intentionally publish incorrect information about TMI intended to cause fear? Seems like all they needed to do to accurately publish information they were hearing from the government and "experts." Does anyone remember the "hydrogen bubble" that was theorized could explode and fracture the primary barrier and drain the water (coolant) from the core? It was only much later that folks remembered that the hydrogen resulted from water dissociating to make Zr oxide. That is there was no oxygen to make the hydrogen react.

Who is responsible for NIED? The one who is negligent and that that negligence causes (inflicts) emotional distress.

So, lets take TMI - Say we find a person has/exhibits the symptoms of PTSD (aka emotional distress) and the person is diagnosed as having PTSD.

1 Can you prove TMI (or something/someone associated with the accident) caused the PTSD? If no, end. If yes go to 2.

2 Can you show that the behavior was negligent or intentional? If no, end. If yes go to 3.

3 Can you show that the conduct was outrageous and shocked the senses? If no, end. If yes go to 4.

4 Can you fashion an appropriate remedy? If no, end. If yes go to 5.

5 Do you think that you can find a jury who will agree with each of the above AND will give a judgement that would make taking the case worthwhile?

So did the TMI event cause the PTSD? Probably and reasonably, no. But the confusion after the event may have. Assuming that the confusion was not intentional, was it the result of negligence? That would be very hard to show.

We have to face the fact that the law can not right every wrong.  We also need to accept that verdicts ($) are not always fair.

> Frankly, if
>
> we do anything under the color of law, I would like to see us move
>
> toward equalizing those risks across the economic strata (put an LLRW
>
> site in Newport Beach, e.g.).  I'd rather balance our risks with
>
> an environmental justice model, . . .

I agree. I was just a part of defending the idea that these risks should be shared. The risk? An exposure of locals to 0.2 mrem/year (or less) from tritium releases. The problem? "It (the facility) should not be near homes - so move it or close it." The homes involved were some of the most expensive in the area. Can you predict the outcome? Yes, the facility has been closed. As long as the affected have money, risks will not be equalized.

Isn't this the purpose of money? Money gives you the ability to live in a "nice area" - low crime, not near industry or pollution (far away from the pig farms?), and that the government will work to assure your investment (that is what zoning is about). I would like to see the law/rule that will force the equalization of risks. Hum? Who makes those laws/rules? Who influences them the most? I am sure that it is not the poor.

Can an EIR/EIS review of plans for a new chemical plant say "the risk to those around the proposed site are in a "low" socioeconomic condition area and they already have too much risk; therefore, this risk needs to be balanced by siting the facility  in a low risk "high" socioeconomic condition area." It should be interesting to see General Chemical site a plant in Sausalito in Marin or you LLRW site in Newport Beach.

 

It seems that the golden rule still wins - "Those with the gold make the rules."

Paul lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

Just an old HP living in an administrative law driven world.

--