Workers awarded $100M, even without major health effects
December 22, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Chemical safety, Fatality, In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, Lawsuits, new court decision
PDF BP must pay more than $100 million in damages for exposing contract workers to toxic chemicals, even though none of the 10 employees in the case suffered major long-term health effects.
A federal jury reached that verdict in connection with an April 19, 2007, poisonous chemical leak at its Texas City, TX, plant. The workers claimed BP failed to maintain equipment and provide adequate safety controls.
BP says it will appeal. The company argues there is no evidence workers were exposed to toxic substances above federal permissible limits.
The jury awarded each worker $10 million in punitive damages, as well as actual damages to cover medical expenses and lost income, ranging from $6,000 to $244,000 each.
Anthony Buzbee, the lawyer representing the 10 workers, says he plans to file lawsuits for an additional 133 workers at the plant.
OSHA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality investigated the 2007 incident. However, the investigations were closed without any notice of violations.
The workers were exposed to carbon disulfide, a harmful chemical that made them feel like they had flu symptoms. Monitors workers were wearing weren’t designed to track the chemical.
One of the workers in the case, 30-year-old Chuck Taylor, spent two nights in the hospital with chest pains after the incident. He still has headaches, dizziness and fatigue.
“The reason I brought the case is because BP’s record is so horrific, and despite deaths and injuries that continue to occur, nothing’s changed,” said Buzbee.
The Texas City plant was also the location where 15 employees were killed and dozens more were injured in a 2005 explosion and fire. BP paid a $50 million fine for that incident, and OSHA has proposed another $87 million in fines for failing to make safety upgrades required under a settlement agreement.
What do you think of the jury’s verdict? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: BP, chemical leak, jury verdict, permissible limits, toxic chemicals
Loading ...
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
And who benefits the most? Trial lawyers.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Another glaring example of the need for tort reform.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Tort reform is right, the unprecidented fines levied upon BP is rediculous. BP has threatened to shut this plant down because of its age, and the problems that have come to light in the last few years. This will be a devastating blow to the local, and national economy, way more so than the economic return that will come from the few that benefit from the fines. I hope the government pulls their proverbial head from the dark side, and looks beyond the ramifications that they feel so justified in blasting what few major employers that we have left in this country with.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Tort reform.though needed, will never happen as long as lawyers go into politics as a profession.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Lawyers along with the courts are getting too involved in the free interprize business sector. Ramification of the largest fines, and Law Suits in history to BP will have a much larger effect if BP pulls out of Texas City. Thousands of jobs rely on the Petrochemical business in this area, who’s really benifiting here. If BP pulls out of SouthEast Texas, the economy will feel the effects in lost jobs, and tax base for a long time to come. We need to explore other alternatives for change, instead of making a few Lawyers and a few people rich.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
While many condenm the legal system and lawyers for awards, how many of you would give up the life or health of a loved one to help the economy of a “major” employer. I have personally been to this plant before the explosion. They killed 15 and injured far more, at what point does it become unaceptable? BP has not shown that it is taking things seriously. Some employers roll the dice hoping to improve the bottom line, by putting off maintenance, planned improvement, safety, etc. My past experience indicates that bean counters at some establishments have to much authority over safety. Long term health effects cannot be determined, over a short period of time especially when dealing with chemicals. Most safety professional know and understand this. An employer in NW Montana produced a product, that has killed (long drawn out illnesses))or sickened most of its employees and families of employees with its product. I guess as long as its good for the economy its ok.
January 5th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I don’t believe OSHA needs to wait for a death or catastophic event in order to levy a significant fine. The purpose of OSHA and all these regulations is to deter companies from exposing employees to serious safety and health hazards. To do that, fines need to be appropriate for the level of hazard, be at least equal to savings achieved by non-compliance, and inflict financial discomfort appropriate to the resources of the company. I think a $100M fine is appropriate to a company the size of BP.
As for giving $10M in punitive damages to each of the exposed employees, I don’t see anything here justifying that kind of compensation. I think fines should be used to help smaller businesses offset cost of implementing OSHA/EPA initiatives, be used for health and safety education/research, or be donated to a non-profit organization acceptable to all parties.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
KC said:
“An employer in NW Montana produced a product, that has killed (long drawn out illnesses))or sickened most of its employees and families of employees with its product. I guess as long as its good for the economy its ok”.
Did the company in Montana deliberately set out to kill people? Workers in the coal mines of appalachia get black lung disease if they work in the mines long enough. There’s nothing that can be done about that. While a lot can be said about the safety record of coal mining companies, they are not willfully trying to kill anybody from black lung disease, and they do take measures to mitigate the effects of the coal dust. That’s what used to be called an occupational hazard. If you don’t like the hazards, then you take up a different occupation. OSHA seems to think that by levying exhorbitant fines, they can prevent the inevitable. There’s a better way to make BP take employee safety seriously than by giving them an incentive to close the plant and economically excoriate an entire region. Maybe the other workers in the plant would like to keep their jobs if they could.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Legal reform? You bet, when the executives that make these decisions are personally liable not the company itself, then you will see real change.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I agree there has to be Tort Reform to get rid of frivolous and plain silly law suits but where some folk have their life and health (as well as their family’s safety impacted by employers that just do not care) sometimes outrageous fines or costs will speak louder than anything else. Fines that appear to be outrageous are given because many companies would rather pay the fine than correct the problems. Many times it is more cost effective to pay fines than fix problems so they pay the fine and take a risk with the employee’s welfare hoping or gambling on the negative not happen.
I hope no-one has to suffer the loss of a loved one because of this attitude from companies but it happens all too often. It has happened to me and I know of many others that have lost partner’s husband’s wives children or others close to them. These things happen not only to the employed person but to those close to them as in being made ill with something life threatening by exposure to a residue on clothing.
I truly believe that Human Life is not expendable unfortunately frequently in business the bottom line is the only line considered and safety costs money sometimes a lot of money. And yes there is a consideration to keeping the economy moving and people working but at what cost? People’s lives or their health?
February 10th, 2010 at 8:58 am
BP as in the gas station. Guess I found something new to boycott. “The Texas City plant was also the location where 15 employees were killed and dozens more were injured in a 2005 explosion and fire. BP paid a $50 million fine for that incident, and OSHA has proposed another $87 million in fines for failing to make safety upgrades required under a settlement agreement.” Fines aren’t doing enough so maybe we need to lead a unified boycott or the lawyers need to pursue criminal action. Maybe jail time would improve compliance? I group these kind of organization into an elite group of capital murderers.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I tend to agree with KC (some plant management is indifferent) and also that lawyers can cloud the issue which is safety. I have worked with Plant Management that was indifferent and with some great managers when it came to safety.
The difference can be summed up in this question and the answer:
“Would you put your son or daughter in the work environment in which you allow your employees to work daily?
This is the question I think should be asked of each Manager and Supervisor and CEO of industrial facilities.
If the question is asked often enough I have found it will change the attitude of some managers who tend to take safety risks.
This question should govern all our actions in plants as not all safety risks are covered by OSHA regulations. Also some OSHA regulations are “overkill” and some do not go far enough. But the, “name of the game is do not get people hurt since they are all somebodys kids, or husband or wife”! I do not want to be the one to tell a parent or wife or husband your loved one is death because we could not afford a special tool or good monitor or take the time to calibate our monitors or enforce a safety rule like Lock out Tag Out.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:25 am
Steve
There is no excuse for 15 deaths and employees exposed to dangerous chemicals in a plant that has so many safety violations.
If it takes crazy lawsuits in combination with OSHA fines so be it. To me human life is not cheap and should be protected not made at risk by a profit making indifferance to basic procedures.