A big win for the people vs the Frackers

[Champion Jack]

A jury in Dallas, TX today awarded $2.925 million to plaintiffs Bob and Lisa Parr, who sued Barnett shale fracking company Aruba Petroleum Inc. for intentionally causing a nuisance on the Parr's property which impacted their health and ruined their drinking water.

The jury returned its 5-1 verdict confirming that Aruba Petroleum “intentionally created a private nuisance” though its drilling, fracking and production activities at 21 gas wells near the Parrs' Wise County home over a three-year period between 2008-2011.

Plaintiffs attorneys claimed the case is “the first fracking verdict in U.S. history.”

That makes it "case law" and legal precedent, which will probably end the insurance debate on the matter.
And that might spell the end of frackers ability to insure themselves

http://desmogblog.com

[mtasselin]

1. Great

Good job, but if you don't have the money in your bank don't go out and spend it. The battle was won but the fight is far from over, Good Luck because even though it is a small victory it is a victory.

[Dustlawyer]

2. Many of the Frackers are wealthy enough that they are self-insured. In Texas, mandotory

insurance or the wealth equivalent is relatively low. If something bad happens, they tender the insurance proceeds to the Courts to let the victims fight over the too little money, then they file bankruptcy with no assets b/c they lease all of their equipment from another underfunded defendant owned by the same parent company. The parent company just opens up another company and keep going. That's how our Tort Reform works! This way they still escape paying most of the damage they caused and the victims (workers) are left holding the bag!

[Orrex]

3. Has Scalia overturned it yet?

[lame54]

5. Don't you mean Scalia/Thomas?

[iandhr]

6. They are the same.

Scalia is Thomas's brain.

[eggplant]

4. Wow, I'm shocked.

Standard procedure would have been to make a private non-admission settlement to avoid just this sort of precedent. Aruba's lawyers were caught snoozing.

[PatrynXX]

7. must be related to the Incredibles :)

Ellen Parr? Bob Parr? superheros in texas

[PatrynXX]

8. wait a min Bob Parr?

just thought that thru lol totally makes sense now. always thought they lived in CA or TX.



Craig T. Nelson ... Bob Parr / Mr. Incredible (voice)

[demoncrat]

9. Fracking has been going on for over 50 years

and very few water wells have been ruined. The big culprit is the injection wells that gets rid of the frac water and production water.
Using fracking technology has has ended the dependency on foreign oil. The oil companies should be liable for the harm they do but it ain't going to stop.

[Champion Jack]

10. Hydraulic slick water Fracking has only been going on for about 12 years

Thanks for the big gas propaganda

[mybuddy]

12. No precedent

This is simply a personal injury case, no precedent set here.

Of the thousands of wells fracked every year this was simply a case of an ambulance chaser throwing darts at 9 different companies and 1 of them stuck. The one that made a mistake out of the thousands.

Please use science when it comes to fracking. I recommend a 100 level statistics course to get started.

[Champion Jack]

13. thanks for your concern , but, wrong on all counts, nice try tho'

You gas guys really need to update your propaganda....
Here's what that jury said: "A six-member Dallas County jury came back at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday and agreed with Robert and Lisa Parr that Aruba Petroleum “intentionally created a private nuisance” in drilling, fracking and producing 21 gas wells near their Wise County home over a three-year period from 2008-2011."

That makes it "case law" and legal precedent, which will probably end the insurance debate on the matter.

[7wo7rees]

15. This is a huge deal.

Even if the Parrs see nothing of the payout, it is a colossal win for the people.

It shows that these companies can be sued and beaten, property rights, health violations, whatever the deal.
It shows that JURIES are essential.
It shows that the work of Calvin Tillman, Josh Fox, Sharon Wilson, and so many others can be vindicated for their tireless efforts to wake the people to their own power, and collapse the nefarious doings of a sick industry.

May we carry it forward and kill this beast.

[Nihil]

16. Love it!

One sleeper troll account gets TS'd so Buddy the Gas Man simply activates a spare sleeper troll account.

> Please use science when it comes to fracking.

Pretty ironic coming from the people who deny science.

[a kennedy]

11. Reminds me of the "Love Canal" incident years ago.....

http://wptschedule.org/episodes/45013569/American-Masters/A-Fierce-Green-Fire/ or this: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/a-fierce-green-fire/watch-the-film/2924/

Saw this on Public TV last night, was really well done

[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.