Bhopal Litigation Continues

        November 3, 2008, the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reinstated a suit - Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 2^nd Cir., No. 06-5694 11/03/08), seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages under New York State law as a result of groundwater pollution allegedly caused by the Union Carbide Bhopal pesticide manufacturing facility which was the site of an event frequently cited as the world’s worst industrial disaster.  December 3, 1984, a Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released 42 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, exposing at least 520,000 people to toxic gases and resulting in the immediate deaths of more than 3,000 people, according to the Indian Supreme Court. It is estimated that a total of 8,000 people died within two weeks, and it is estimated that an additional 8,000 have since died from gas related diseases (Wikkipedia).  The Bhopal incident was significant for West Virginia since the UCC Institute West Virginia facility also manufactured MIC and because of UCC's significant industrial presence in West Virginia. 

 

        The plaintiffs in the groundwater pollution case alleged that groundwater was contaminated before the accident by wastes generated during the manufacture of pesticides. Plaintiffs are trying to bypass the corporate entity and pursue legal action against individuals behind the corporation, notably the then chief executive of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson.   Plaintiffs in the case were members of a group that had previously filed a different suit involving the catastrophic release of MIC. In that case claims were barred by a settlement agreement between the government of India and Union Carbide (Bano v. Union Carbide Corp. 273 F. 3d 120 (2^nd Cir. 2001). 

 

        The Sahu water pollution suit argued that Union Carbide’s response to the 1984 disaster was insufficient. Defendants asked for an order granting summary judgment because the documentary evidence contradicted the allegations of the complaint the defense motions was supported by thousands of pages of evidence. 

 

        The Second Circuit’s ruling was not on any substantive grounds but on a procedural issue that the New York federal District Court had improperly converted a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

 

        This article was authored by Barbara D. Little, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.