Why are Bhopal survivors still fighting for compensation?

[webfact]

Why are Bhopal survivors still fighting for compensation?
By Alys Francis
Delhi

(BBC) On the night of 2 December 1984, Lakshmi Thakur was putting her children to bed when her eyes started stinging.

She went outside to investigate, thinking a neighbour was frying chillies, and found people running in panic, clutching their faces.

Someone told her there had been an accident at Union Carbide India's pesticide plant behind her house in Bhopal, the capital of the central state of Madhya Pradesh, and the burning wasn't from cooking, but from leaking gas.

Lakshmi gathered her family and fled towards a bus stop by the factory. On the way, one of her sons started to vomit and another doubled over with diarrhoea. Her 20-year-old daughter didn't live to see morning.

More than half a million people were poisoned by deadly methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas that night. Several thousands of them died.

Now nearly 30 years later, Lakshmi is among thousands of survivors who say they suffer chronic health problems and have crippling medical bills.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30205140

-- BBC 2014-12-02

[zaphod reborn]

The problem was that the survivors couldn't get compensation out of the US courts and were forced to seek relief in the Indian courts. Union Carbide should have paid through the nose for this disaster.

[slapout]

The operation of said factility had been turned over to the Indian sector, the same as many British facilities had since independence. The Indian government had legal pauout schedules for deaths, disability, medeical care, etc at the time of this screw up. The huge judgements asked for, were so far out of line with Indian national policy/law that it was and still is laughable.

Try sueing for 1 lak rupie today and see how much you collect, from a company headquartered outside India, which is basically a franchaise agrement/operation.

[Johpa]

The ruling global Corporatocracy does not pay such costs. In the vernacular, they externalize such expenses, along with costs associated with pollution. Nothing will change without radical social and economic change in the corporate centers.

[Chicog]

They did cough up $470M, but how much of that got trousered?

[Seastallion]

The compensation would have been fairer and paid quicker if the US hadn't done it's darndest to protect Union Carbide way back at the time.

[F430murci]

The compensation would have been fairer and paid quicker if the US hadn't done it's darndest to protect Union Carbide way back at the time.

Please elaborate or is this just more of your humorous anti-everything-America rant with no facts in support.

My recollection was US courts transferred case to Indian courts because the factory was Union Carbide of India Limited. Transferring jurisdiction and control of the Indian company litigation to the Indian Courts seems inconsistent with your theory of US trying to control the litigation and/or protect its own.

UCIL was also a subsidiary owned, operated, managed and controled by Indian public. Parents are typically not liable for subsidiaries, even when wholly owned, which UCIL was not wholly owned.

The Indian government assumed control of the settlement funds and were responsible for compensating the injured and cover future medical expenses. Sounds to me that India dropped the ball here.

Edited December 2, 2014 by F430murci

[Soutpeel]

The compensation would have been fairer and paid quicker if the US hadn't done it's darndest to protect Union Carbide way back at the time.

Please elaborate or is this just more of your humorous anti-everything-America rant with no facts in support.

My recollection was US courts transferred case to Indian courts because the factory was Union Carbide of India Limited. Transferring jurisdiction and control of the Indian company litigation to the Indian Courts seems inconsistent with your theory of US trying to control the litigation and/or protect its own.

UCIL was also a subsidiary owned, operated, managed and controled by Indian public. Parents are typically not liable for subsidiaries, even when wholly owned, which UCIL was not wholly owned.

The Indian government assumed control of the settlement funds and were responsible for compensating the injured and cover future medical expenses. Sounds to me that India dropped the ball here.

So if your premise is correct why did the international arm of BP get screwed over for the gulf of Mexico disaster ?, it should have only been the US division of BP then in that case ?

The fact is Union carbide in cohoots with US government/courts stitched them up in India, but nice try with the typical TV response of " your anti american" as soon as someone suggests wrong doing by an American "party" rather childish

Edited December 2, 2014 by Soutpeel

[F430murci]

The problem was that the survivors couldn't get compensation out of the US courts and were forced to seek relief in the Indian courts. Union Carbide should have paid through the nose for this disaster.

So many incorrect premises here. Difficult to know where to start. US courts don't pay compensation, defendant companies do.

UCIL was a subsidiary of UCC owned by, managed by and operated by Indian public. Parent corporations are not liable for acts of subsidiary, especially when subsidiary is owned, operated and managed by others.

The tort feasor was UCIL, an Indian company. Jurisdiction was not proper in the American courts. Not US courts' fault if India has a disaster for a legal system. US court still has to follow law governing jurisdiction and venue.

As far as UCC paying through the nose, I addressed that above with parent/subsidiary liability. UCIL should be liable for damages.

Sad horrible incident nonetheless and sounds like Indian government dropped the ball here or squandered the settlement fund.

[Soutpeel]

The problem was that the survivors couldn't get compensation out of the US courts and were forced to seek relief in the Indian courts. Union Carbide should have paid through the nose for this disaster.

So many incorrect premises here. Difficult to know where to start. US courts don't pay compensation, defendant companies do.

UCIL was a subsidiary of UCC owned by, managed by and operated by Indian public. Parent corporations are not liable for acts of subsidiary, especially when subsidiary is owned, operated and managed by others.

The tort feasor was UCIL, an Indian company. Jurisdiction was not proper in the American courts. Not US courts' fault if India has a disaster for a legal system. US court still has to follow law governing jurisdiction and venue.

As far as UCC paying through the nose, I addressed that above with parent/subsidiary liability. UCIL should be liable for damages.

Sad horrible incident nonetheless and sounds like Indian government dropped the ball here or squandered the settlement fund.

So once again why where the international arm of BP held accountable for the actions of a wholly US subsidiary of BP in the Gulf of mexico ?

[F430murci]

The compensation would have been fairer and paid quicker if the US hadn't done it's darndest to protect Union Carbide way back at the time.

Please elaborate or is this just more of your humorous anti-everything-America rant with no facts in support.

My recollection was US courts transferred case to Indian courts because the factory was Union Carbide of India Limited. Transferring jurisdiction and control of the Indian company litigation to the Indian Courts seems inconsistent with your theory of US trying to control the litigation and/or protect its own.

UCIL was also a subsidiary owned, operated, managed and controled by Indian public. Parents are typically not liable for subsidiaries, even when wholly owned, which UCIL was not wholly owned.

The Indian government assumed control of the settlement funds and were responsible for compensating the injured and cover future medical expenses. Sounds to me that India dropped the ball here.

So if your premise is correct why did the international arm of BP get screwed over for the gulf of Mexico disaster ?, it should have only been the US division of BP then in that case ?

The fact is Union carbide in cohoots with US government/courts stitched them up in India

I was class counsel and on steering committee for BP litigation. I will be happy to discuss this at length when not 3am here and perhaps in an appropriate thread. Completely different scenarios.

The fact is your logic is fundamentally flawed. If UCC wanted to be in cohoots at you say it with the US courts and US government, they would have kept control if case here and not risked unknowns of being in India court that should have presumably been trying to protect the Indian public.

[Diablo Bob]

The problem was that the survivors couldn't get compensation out of the US courts and were forced to seek relief in the Indian courts. Union Carbide should have paid through the nose for this disaster.

So many incorrect premises here. Difficult to know where to start. US courts don't pay compensation, defendant companies do.

UCIL was a subsidiary of UCC owned by, managed by and operated by Indian public. Parent corporations are not liable for acts of subsidiary, especially when subsidiary is owned, operated and managed by others.

The tort feasor was UCIL, an Indian company. Jurisdiction was not proper in the American courts. Not US courts' fault if India has a disaster for a legal system. US court still has to follow law governing jurisdiction and venue.

As far as UCC paying through the nose, I addressed that above with parent/subsidiary liability. UCIL should be liable for damages.

Sad horrible incident nonetheless and sounds like Indian government dropped the ball here or squandered the settlement fund.

So once again why where the international arm of BP held accountable for the actions of a wholly US subsidiary of BP in the Gulf of mexico ?

I am not a lawyer, but the reason it was in US courts might have something to do with the nationalities of the 11 killed.

[F430murci]

RE: BP

In an oversimplified explanation, BP did what it had to do for self preservation and to continue to operate in the US.

Recent holdings finding that BP was grossly negligent and 67% responsible related only to BP Exploration and Production and BP America Production Company, The parent, BP PLC was exempted for any penalties by Barbier's ruling.

Edited December 2, 2014 by F430murci

[gyrosman]

Why is'it that most people do not understand that corporations are owned by many people, Because it seems to have a USA brand lets sue. Try your local government for not enforcing safety while they piss away the money paid to them!

[Seastallion]

The problem was that the survivors couldn't get compensation out of the US courts and were forced to seek relief in the Indian courts. Union Carbide should have paid through the nose for this disaster.

So many incorrect premises here. Difficult to know where to start. US courts don't pay compensation, defendant companies do.

UCIL was a subsidiary of UCC owned by, managed by and operated by Indian public. Parent corporations are not liable for acts of subsidiary, especially when subsidiary is owned, operated and managed by others.

The tort feasor was UCIL, an Indian company. Jurisdiction was not proper in the American courts. Not US courts' fault if India has a disaster for a legal system. US court still has to follow law governing jurisdiction and venue.

As far as UCC paying through the nose, I addressed that above with parent/subsidiary liability. UCIL should be liable for damages.

Sad horrible incident nonetheless and sounds like Indian government dropped the ball here or squandered the settlement fund.

So once again why where the international arm of BP held accountable for the actions of a wholly US subsidiary of BP in the Gulf of mexico ?

Indeed, especially since the two American managers were found to be guilty of negligence.

[Scott]

This topic is about the Bhopal situation. Unless you can knowledgeably post comparisons, please refrain from discussing other cases.

[attento]

I admit I am ignorant of US and Indian (or any country's) corporate law, but some people here are suggesting that UCL was a subsidiary of Union Carbide whilst at the same time being owned by the Indian people. Does that mean that UC had no interest in UCL, or only a minority interest ? Was UCL owned in totality by an Indian shareholding ? To this simple Joe Public, it all sounds like legal wriggling - the sort of practise which makes people very aware of the difference between the Law and justice.

The Law is what Governments give, but justice is what the people need.

[F430murci]

Design and Construction of the Plant

The design, engineering and construction of the Bhopal plant was a UCIL project from beginning to end and took eight years to complete (1972-1980). The project involved hundreds of Indian engineers and designers from UCIL and major Indian engineering firms, dozens of Indian subcontractors and thousands of Indian construction workers.

Contrary to allegations made by certain parties, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) did not design, construct or operate the Bhopal plant. And, most importantly, all of the decisions with respect to the plant and its design, construction, and operation were either made by UCIL or mandated by Government of Indian (GOI) policies and directives. (See 1987 Court of Appeals Ruling below.) At the insistence of the GOI, UCCs role in the project was very narrow and contractually defined.

. . .

UCIL made a vast number of choices, trade-offs and changes during the detail design, engineering and construction of the plant, and UCCs process designs were changed in innumerable ways to suit UCILs operating philosophy and local conditions. UCC had no further design role. Much of the technology for the Bhopal plant was developed by UCIL itself (the naphthol process and Sevin process) or acquired from Stauffer Chemical Corporation (the carbon monoxide process). Furthermore, UCIL decided not to use UCCs Sevin process and developed its own.

. . .

In short:

- The plant had been constructed and managed by Indians in India.

- No Americans were employed at the plant at the time of the accident. From 1980-84, more than 1,000 Indians were employed at the plant -- but only one American was employed there and he left in 1982.

- No Americans visited the plant for more than one year prior to the incident. And,

- During the 5-year period before, communications between the plant and the U.S. were almost non-existent.

http://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Plant-History-and-Ownership

[F430murci]

I admit I am ignorant of US and Indian (or any country's) corporate law, but some people here are suggesting that UCL was a subsidiary of Union Carbide whilst at the same time being owned by the Indian people. Does that mean that UC had no interest in UCL, or only a minority interest ? Was UCL owned in totality by an Indian shareholding ? To this simple Joe Public, it all sounds like legal wriggling - the sort of practise which makes people very aware of the difference between the Law and justice.

The Law is what Governments give, but justice is what the people need.

Parent subsidiary liability is a fact intensive analysis. Ownership is not necessarily dispositive. Even a wholly owned subsidiary's acts won't be imputed to parents unless there is a string element of control, proof that the subsidiary was intentionally undercapitalized in order to commit a fraud or subsidiary transfers its assets to a parent after incurring liability.

UCIL was not wholly owned. I think UCC owned right at 50% of the stock, but the issue is one of control, whether UCIL was set up an undercapitalized subsidiary company solely to commit a fraud or whether there was a transfer of assets from UCIL to UCC after the leak.

It is extremely difficult pierce corporate veil and I imagine UCC could have potentially avoided all liability in US courts under basic US corporate law.

BP and UCC similarities

UCC paid due to moral responsibilities of someone needing to pay and political pressures.

BP Plc funded settlements due to concerns and threats that BP would not get future drllling rights/tracks if it did not clean up the mess and compensate those impacted.

There is a lot of inaccurate reporting on BP stuff, candidly because it is so complicated and the media is either stupid or has an agenda. There are also a lot of old archaic acts at play that greatly complicated matters.

Edited December 2, 2014 by F430murci

[elgordo38]

The ruling global Corporatocracy does not pay such costs. In the vernacular, they externalize such expenses, along with costs associated with pollution. Nothing will change without radical social and economic change in the corporate centers.

Your right in their eyes these people are collateral damage nothing more than an inconvience on the profit road. Look at the oil and other pollution (pipes barrels etc.) left behind in Africa its laying right on the surface Its rape and pillage and move on. Its a carpetbagger world.

[ableguy]

The problem was that the survivors couldn't get compensation out of the US courts and were forced to seek relief in the Indian courts. Union Carbide should have paid through the nose for this disaster.

Union carbide settled with the Indian government paying the 474 million USA dollars, and walked away, the factory is still in situ and full of poison leaking into the water table but it's the Indian governments job to clean the mess up, so don't hold your breath sixty percent of all house holds have no toilet and crap in the pristine outdoors. What's a few chemicals ???

[connda]

Why are Bhopal survivors still fighting for compensation? Probably because highly connected corporations with deep pockets that have the ability to buy off politicians and government agencies never stepped up to address the human suffer that their 'accident' caused. Bhopal survivors have every right to keep fighting on.

If the CEO's son drives his BMW into a wall, it's a tragedy. If his corporation poisons a few thousand Indians, it's a statistic.

Edited December 2, 2014 by connda