Pg&amp Essay Example

serious conditions that include tumors and intestinal problems.

After realizing that these conditions may have been caused by the chromium leak from PG&E, the residents of Hinkley, California decided to file suit against the gas and electric company. 36 claims were tried and over 650 people were involved. The plaintiff’s lawyers agreed on private arbitration, which took over two years. The plaintiff’s lawyers had to come up with a substantial amount of information to present that included proof of medical causation, dealing with missing evidence, reconstruct a complex hydro-geological water system, and prove the extent of PG&E’s inappropriate conduct (Bos).

Eventually they reached a global settlement and all the named plaintiffs were compensated a combined total of $333 million. PG&E was also required to clean up the environment and ordered to stop using chromium XI (Bos). This case can be studied as an example of ethics and negligence. It is a case study of how arbitration is rising and creating a legal system that favors people who have money over people that do not. Anderson v. PG&E can be used to examine conflicts of interest. The plaintiff’s lawyers agreed to private arbitration before a panel of for-hire judges who has been socializing with the attorney’s prior (Sharp, 2000).

The main focus being on the fact that PG&E did not take the required steps once they found the chromium leak. The residents should have been informed and steps should have been taken to begin a complete clean up of the mess. PG&E did not inform the public of the situation that ended up causing injury. This was not proper ethics for the company,

thus costing them $333 million dollars. The main issue involved in the case of Anderson v. PG&E is negligence. With this argument follows duty of care, reasonable person standard, and damages. All of these are core concepts when reviewing this particular case.

These notions are what most likely caused the court to grant the plaintiffs with the settlement. Negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances (p. 113, Miller). A tort of negligence is caused when someone has suffered from an injury because of someone else’s wrongful actions. The concept of a tort of negligence can be found in this case and is the main argument. By having knowledge of the chromium in the water supply, PG&E should have been required to let the people know that were affected by it.

By not telling the citizens, they were withholding information that affected these people’s lives. Because a risk was created, consequences came, and nothing was done to prevent such injuries that did occur, PG&E should have been considered negligent. Certain criteria should be considered when looking at a negligence case. Questions to be asked are; did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff? Did the defendant breach that duty? Did the plaintiff suffer a recognizable injury? Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff’s injury (p. 114, Miller)? The answer to all of these questions is yes when looking at this particular case.

The defendant had a duty to report the chromium leaks to the people it could have affected. A breach of that duty occurred when the plaintiffs were

not informed of the chemical in their water supply. The plaintiffs then suffered multiple injuries of various degrees because they were not informed of the chemical in their water. Because PG&E did not inform the people in the area, these injuries did occur. PG&E had a duty of care that they did not uphold.

A duty of care is the duty of all persons as established by tort law to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings with others. Failure to do so constitutes the tort of negligence (p. 114, Miller). The basic idea is that people are free to do whatever they like, as long as their actions do not violate the wellbeing of other people. PG&E did in fact infringe on the wellbeing of others by not following up on the chemical hazards. They failed to comply with their duty of care, in consequence causing lot of people to become very sick from being exposed to the chemicals in their water.

Under the duty of care concept comes the reasonable person standard. To determine if a duty of care has been breached, the court will ask how a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances (p. 115, Miller). This idea is the reasonable person standard. The standard of behavior expected of a hypothetical reasonable person (p. 115, Miller). The rule says that a reasonable person would be careful, reliable, and honest. In the case of PG&E, careful, reliable, and honest is what they were not.

They were reckless and shady regarding the information they had concerning the water test conclusions. If the company would have came

forward and admitted the results of the testing to people that could be affected, and then the reasonable person standard would not apply. But because they failed to inform the public of the contaminated water supply, they are held responsible for the lack of information produced. The last part of negligence is causation and damages. Causation is when the company/person fails in a duty of care and someone suffers injury.

The wrongful activity must have caused harm for a tort to have been committed (p. 117, Miller). Because this case was settled under arbitration it is unknown whether or not PG&E was actually found guilty of negligence. It would be apparent that their lack of effort to inform the public of the contaminated water would in fact be considered causation. In any case, the plaintiffs were awarded for their damages. Punitive damages were awarded to the named plaintiffs involved. Punitive damages are damages that are awarded that cover the damages involved plus some.

These types of damages are usually awarded in order to deter future similar conduct (p. 117, Miller). The determined amount to each person was not released but it is known that the entire group as a whole was granted $333 million. The tort law principle is when business owners owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their customers. By lack of notification to the surrounding area of the chemical leak, PG&E failed to meet the requirement of that duty to protect. A failed warning of risks occurred causing many people to become very sick and potentially risking their lives.

If a business owner breaches this duty of

care and the breach of duty causes a customer to be injured, the business will be liable to the customer for the customer’s injuries. This can be found when examining the tort law principle. Because PG&E breached their duty of care and became negligent, over 650 people in Hinkley, California were caused injuries. This makes PG&E liable for the injuries that were incurred. PG&E in turn was forced to not only pay the plaintiffs for their damages but also ordered to clean up the chemical mess and discontinue the use of the chemical chromium XI.