Crockett.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (01/11/84)
Fyi, if you didn't hear it on the news this morning... The Supreme Court today overruled the Oklahoma State Court decision in a suit by Karen Silkwood's father and children against Kerr-Magee (sp?) owners of the Plutonium plant where she worked prior to her accidental (?) death in 1974 at the age of 28. The award was based on the contamination she received while working there as a technician. The vote was 5 to 4 to award the children $10M. (For some technical reason this reverts back to the state court, so the actual amount may end up being less.) However, the Supreme Court declared that Kerr-Magee had acted "wantonly and recklessly" in this matter. A nice footnote to last night's movie Silkwood. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, do. I found it a thoughly believable and creepy movie. Meg
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (01/15/84)
Meg (Crockett.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA) reports: >> The Supreme Court today overruled the Oklahoma State Court decision in a >> suit by Karen Silkwood's father and children against Kerr-Magee (sp?) >> owners of the Plutonium plant where she worked prior to her accidental >> (?) death in 1974 at the age of 28. The award was based on the >> contamination she received while working there as a technician. The >> vote was 5 to 4 to award the children $10M. (For some technical reason >> this reverts back to the state court, so the actual amount may end up >> being less.) However, the Supreme Court declared that Kerr-Magee had >> acted "wantonly and recklessly" in this matter. A couple of comments (I would appreciate corrections or clarifications from anyone who is less hazy on the details than I): I recall hearing in a constitutional law class this semester that several of the Supreme Court justices became visibly angry upon hearing Kerr-McGee's lawyers present their case. Kerr-McGee asserted that because of a law restricting the liability of the nuclear industry in case of nuclear accidents, any claim for damages made by any of their workers was illegitimate on its face, regardless of proof of negligence. (The legislation was passed in the infancy of the nuclear industry because no insurance company would cover its unknown but presumably high risks. This was its first test in court.) The recent ruling essentially said that Congress may not pass a law which puts a group like the nuclear industry above the law. The case reverts to the lower court because of a very basic judicial principle: the Supreme Court rules on points of law, not on individual cases. When they overturn a ruling, the case always goes back for a retrial. ---- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/15/84)
-- From: Crockett.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-- The Supreme Court today overruled the Oklahoma State Court decision in a
-- suit by Karen Silkwood's father and children against Kerr-Magee (sp?)
-- owners of the Plutonium plant where she worked prior to her accidental
-- (?) death in 1974 at the age of 28. The award was based on the
-- contamination she received while working there as a technician. The
-- vote was 5 to 4 to award the children $10M. (For some technical reason
-- this reverts back to the state court, so the actual amount may end up
-- being less.) However, the Supreme Court declared that Kerr-Magee had
-- acted "wantonly and recklessly" in this matter.
--
-- A nice footnote to last night's movie Silkwood. For those of you who
-- haven't seen it yet, do. I found it a thoughly believable and creepy
-- movie.
--
-- Meg
--
From what I have seen of the news reports, the Supreme Court did not
vote "to aware the children" any particular amount. The issue that went
to the Supreme Court was whether the children could sue Kerr-Magee at
all. Now that that issue is out of the way, the defendant will definitely
appeal the amount of the award.
Appeals in legal cases usually relate to a limited point of law. In this
case, the Supreme Court wasn't asked to determine whether the damages
were appropriate. (That separate issue could conceivably still make it
to the Supreme Court, I suppose.) A lower court will now handle the appeal
on the question of damages.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davedave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/15/84)
- From: riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle)
- The case reverts to the lower court because of a very basic judicial principle:
- the Supreme Court rules on points of law, not on individual cases. When they
- overturn a ruling, the case always goes back for a retrial.
Sorry, I don't think that's true. The Supreme Court rules on points of law,
indeed. As I outlined in a previous message in net.movies, the point of law
which was appealed had nothing to do with damages, so the damages issue must
be dealt with at a lower level. But cases decided by the Supreme Court
certainly do stand. As long as no legal issues remain which are not appealed
and dealt with by the Supreme Court, nothing needs to go back to a lower
level.
(And I promised myself I wouldn't start pontificating about U.S. law,
about which I know so little...)
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!daveriddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (01/16/84)
You're right, of course. I realized almost as soon as I had fired off
that article that the "always" should have been a "usually", or even an
"often". The fact that there are generally numerous questions left
unresolved when the Supreme Court overturns a lower court's decision
doesn't justify an "always". I was obviously thinking of Supreme Court
decisions in favor of a defendant in a criminal case, a situation which
doesn't apply in the Silkwood case.
Oh, well. I guess I should prepare for flames.
----
Prentiss Riddle
("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlempr@mb2c.UUCP (01/17/84)
I am really tired of hearing that a criminal defendant got off because of a legal technality. These so called technalities usually infringe upon our Constitutional Rights. All citizens, including criminal defendants, are entitled to Due Process of law, under the 14th Amendment, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure, under the 4th Amendment. Maybe the press is capable of publicizing many (more than one) cases where a defendant, who is guilty as sin apparently, gets off. But in the long run, these rights inure to the benefit of other less culpable defendants. Maybe a lynch mob test should be taken. If the lynch mob would prefer to take actions into their own hands, then our Constitutional Rights should not apply. (and vice versa) (This is only a sarcastic editorial.)
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (01/18/84)
Complaining about legal technicalities is a lot like complaining that a team lost a football game because of one bad call. First: If you are way out in front, one technicality or bad call won't stop you. Second: Every law case or (in my analogy) sports event is simply a walking minefield of legal technicalities and bad calls. The professionals involved are continually steering clear and stumbling over them. There is no point pretending that one technicality that sticks out is more importnat than the hundreds that got little publicity. For a really entertaining education on technicalities and the law, read "Helter Skelter", the D.A.'s account of convicting mass murderer Charles Manson and a few of his followers. - Toby Robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or: allegra!eosp1!robison (maybe: princeton!eosp1!robison)
lorne@uokvax.UUCP (01/23/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1530800:uokvax:3900011:000:707 uokvax!lorne Jan 21 20:15:00 1984 A couple of small points: It is spelled Kerr McGee. The supream court overruled the Federal Court of Appeals, not the Oklahoma State Court. The Oklahoma Courts originally awarded the Silkwood family $10,000,000, it was the Federal courts that reduced this amount. It has never been shown that Kerr McGee had anything to do with Miss Silkwoods car accident (as so strongly implied in the movie). All of the damages have been awarded because of plutonium contamination. Also, the court award is to her mother and dad. Anyone who sees this movie has been taken by the most unbelieveable media hype ever genarated. Lorne Wilson University of Oklahoma ...ctvax!uokvax!lorne
woods@hao.UUCP (01/24/84)
I did *not* see a strong implication in the movie that Kerr McGee was
responsible for the car accident. I think that is what *you* wanted or
expected to see! I think the political stuff was kept to a real minimum
in this movie, compared to what *I* expected to see.
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodsgam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (01/31/84)
> From: lorne@uokvax.UUCP > > It has never been shown that Kerr McGee had anything to do > with Miss Silkwoods car accident (as so strongly implied in > the movie). All of the damages have been awarded because of > plutonium contamination. Also, the court award is to her mother > and dad. > > Anyone who sees this movie has been taken by the most unbelieveable > media hype ever genarated. The movie does not `strongly imply' that Kerr-McGee had anything to do with Silkwood's death. What exactly are you drawing upon to make this assumption? As for `unbelieveable media hype', what do you mean? Are you saying that the praise this movie received is undeserved? Is it being advertised too much? Did you not like certain political implications about the nuclear power industry? Your objection seems overstated. -- Gordon A. Moffett { allegra, decvax!decwrl } !amd70!proper hplabs!intelca!proper!gam