In Landmark Ruling, Jury Says Fracking Company Must Pay $3 Million To Sickened Family

[Ruby the Liberal]

Source: ThinkProgress

A family claiming they were sickened because of pollution from hydraulic fracturing operations near their home should be awarded $2.95 million for their troubles, a jury ruled on Tuesday.

The Parr family had sued Aruba Petroleum Inc. in 2011, alleging the oil and gas producer exposed them to hazardous gases, chemicals and industrial waste that seeped into the air from 22 wells drilled near the family’s 40-acre plot of land, which sits atop the Barnett Shale.

The jury returned a 5-1 verdict saying Aruba “intentionally created a private nuisance,” awarding $275,000 for losses on property value, $2 million for past physical pain and suffering, $250,000 for future physical pain and suffering, and $400,000 for mental anguish.

“They’re vindicated,” David Matthews, one of the Parr’s attorneys, wrote on his firm’s blog Tuesday. “I’m really proud of the family that went through what they went through … It’s not easy to go through a lawsuit and have your personal life uncovered and exposed to the extent this family went through.”

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/23/3429788/fracking-verdict/

---

This family was featured in Gasland.

[sheshe2]

1. Good, let the lawsuits begin!

[Champion Jack]

3. yup

[Earth_First]

2. I'd be curious what the gag order agreement states.

I wonder to what extend they, their children or their family or acquaintances can talk about the verdict without risking their settlement or future criminal charges...

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Although it is a first, it is only a jury recommendation

There isn't a deal for there to be a confidentiality agreement attached.

It was noted in the comments that most of these deals are settled out of court with gag orders. Seems like this family decided to go for it. Glad they did!

[Sanity Claws]

16. A jury verdict is not a recommendation

The vast majority of times a judgment is entered on the verdict.
There are some isolated instances when the judge does not enter judgment on the verdict but it is rare. The judge's order not to enter judgment on the verdict is subject to review and reversal by an appeal court.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. Thanks for the clarification

[Sanity Claws]

15. What gag order?

Gag orders are part of settlement agreements.
This family did not settle. They took the case to trial and got a jury verdict. A jury verdict and the judgment entered on it are public record.

[rhett o rick]

5. I would be surprised if they get any money, at least for years. And what a shame that

our government doesnt protect them and others. Instead of prevention, the people have to sue after they are harmed.

[LiberalEsto]

6. How long will it take the Supreme Court majority to overturn this?

I'm betting it won't take long.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. ,

,

[niyad]

8. and, like the residents of prince william sound, they will never see a dime

[HooptieWagon]

9. Yep. And....

include BP getting off the hook for but a pittance compared to the damage done to Gulf of Mexico.

[niyad]

11. not to mention all the other damage they have caused.

[WillyT]

10. K & R !!!

[watoos]

12. Aruba petrolium is appealing.

The gas company had a doctor testify on the stand that just because the family lived beside 14 frack wells it does not prove cause and effect even though the family had frack chemicals in their bloodstream and lungs.
The gas company will certainly drag this out and make it expensive for the Parr family.

[Dragonfli]

13. K&R /nt

[freshwest]

14. Good. But I doubt they will regain their health. We need more anti-fracking news. n/t