《一滴也不能喝:海商法与英国石油公司井喷事故》

Q4 Social Sciences
John J. Costonis
{"title":"《一滴也不能喝:海商法与英国石油公司井喷事故》","authors":"John J. Costonis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2113822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although viewed as an admiralty tort by commentators (e.g., Professor David Robertson) and a 2011 BP Blowout MDL opinion (B-1 Bundle) by presiding MDLJudge Carl Barbier) I argued that the blowout is not an admiralty tort for three reasons: 1. The tort does not satisfy the requirement of Executive Jet Aviation Co. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (Executive Jet) that it be \"substantially related to a traditional maritime activity.\" 2. It does not satisfy the Executive Jet requirement for a \"vessel.\" More specifically, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig or \"mobile offhsore drilling unit\" (MODU) does not qualify as a \"vessel\" under Outer Continental Shelf Act(OCSLA) sec.1333(a)(1), which, instead classifies MODUs as \"temporarily attached devices (TADs). 3. In line with Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U,S,352 (1969), torts occurring on OCSLA situses are governed by the (non-admiralty) OCSLA, not by admiralty law. Rodrigue overruled the leading Fifth Circuit precedent, Snipes v. Pure Oil Co., 293 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1961), because, like the B-1 Bundle ruling in the BP MDL, it wrongly ruled that tdortgs on OCSLA situses are not \"maritime\" events but rather are ruled by OCSLA. A major theme of the article is that virtually all 5th Circuit OCSLA tort rulings up to the BP MDL addressed the entitlement of injured or deceased workers atop drilling rig platforms (whether fixed or TADS) whereas the unique OCSLA/Oil Pollution act of 1990 tort being litigated in the BP blowout is an action to remedy the economic and property losses incurred by tens of thousands of off-platform plaintiffs in the Gulf coastal state in consequence of the OCS oil discharge of the BP subsea and the 45/10,0000ths of the total discharge from the Deepwater Horizon. The policy argument in favor of deeming the MODU an admiralty \"vessel\" in the conventional injured deceased platform worker case (that the latter's recovery is dependent on that labelling) is wholly irrelevant with respect to the dissimilar OCSLA/OPA tort in the BP MDL.","PeriodicalId":39678,"journal":{"name":"Louisiana Law Review","volume":"73 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"And Not a Drop to Drink: Admiralty Law and the BP Well Blowout\",\"authors\":\"John J. Costonis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2113822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although viewed as an admiralty tort by commentators (e.g., Professor David Robertson) and a 2011 BP Blowout MDL opinion (B-1 Bundle) by presiding MDLJudge Carl Barbier) I argued that the blowout is not an admiralty tort for three reasons: 1. The tort does not satisfy the requirement of Executive Jet Aviation Co. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (Executive Jet) that it be \\\"substantially related to a traditional maritime activity.\\\" 2. It does not satisfy the Executive Jet requirement for a \\\"vessel.\\\" More specifically, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig or \\\"mobile offhsore drilling unit\\\" (MODU) does not qualify as a \\\"vessel\\\" under Outer Continental Shelf Act(OCSLA) sec.1333(a)(1), which, instead classifies MODUs as \\\"temporarily attached devices (TADs). 3. In line with Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U,S,352 (1969), torts occurring on OCSLA situses are governed by the (non-admiralty) OCSLA, not by admiralty law. Rodrigue overruled the leading Fifth Circuit precedent, Snipes v. Pure Oil Co., 293 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1961), because, like the B-1 Bundle ruling in the BP MDL, it wrongly ruled that tdortgs on OCSLA situses are not \\\"maritime\\\" events but rather are ruled by OCSLA. A major theme of the article is that virtually all 5th Circuit OCSLA tort rulings up to the BP MDL addressed the entitlement of injured or deceased workers atop drilling rig platforms (whether fixed or TADS) whereas the unique OCSLA/Oil Pollution act of 1990 tort being litigated in the BP blowout is an action to remedy the economic and property losses incurred by tens of thousands of off-platform plaintiffs in the Gulf coastal state in consequence of the OCS oil discharge of the BP subsea and the 45/10,0000ths of the total discharge from the Deepwater Horizon. The policy argument in favor of deeming the MODU an admiralty \\\"vessel\\\" in the conventional injured deceased platform worker case (that the latter's recovery is dependent on that labelling) is wholly irrelevant with respect to the dissimilar OCSLA/OPA tort in the BP MDL.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Louisiana Law Review\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Louisiana Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2113822\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Louisiana Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2113822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管评论家(如David Robertson教授)和MDL首席法官Carl Barbier将2011年BP Blowout MDL意见(B-1 Bundle)视为海事侵权行为,但我认为井喷不是海事侵权行为,原因有三:1。该侵权行为不符合行政公务机航空公司诉克利夫兰市案,409 U.S. 249(1972)(行政公务机)关于其"实质上与传统海事活动有关"的要求。2. 它不符合公务机对“船”的要求。更具体地说,根据《外大陆架法》(OCSLA)第1333(a)(1)条,深水地平线钻井平台或“移动式海上钻井装置”(MODU)不符合“船舶”的资格,该法案将MODU归类为“临时连接设备”(TADs)。3.与罗德里格诉安泰案一致。&苏尔。Co., 395 U,S,352(1969),发生在OCSLA地点的侵权行为受(非海事法)OCSLA管辖,而不受海事法管辖。Rodrigue驳回了第五巡回法院的主要判例,Snipes诉Pure Oil Co, 293 F.2d . 60(1961年第五巡回法院),因为,与BP MDL案的B-1 Bundle裁决一样,它错误地裁定在OCSLA地点发生的纠纷不属于“海事”事件,而是由OCSLA裁决。文章的一个主题是,几乎所有5电路OCSLA侵权判决到BP MDL解决受伤或死去的工人的权利在钻机平台(固定或是否TADS)而独特的OCSLA / 1990年石油污染法侵权诉讼在BP防是一个行动来解决经济和财产损失由成千上万的off-platform原告在墨西哥湾沿海州的结果OCS BP水下和卸油也就是“深水地平线”总排放量的万分之45。在传统的受伤死亡平台工人案件中,支持将MODU视为海事“船舶”的政策论点(后者的恢复取决于该标签)与BP MDL中不同的OCSLA/OPA侵权行为完全无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
And Not a Drop to Drink: Admiralty Law and the BP Well Blowout
Although viewed as an admiralty tort by commentators (e.g., Professor David Robertson) and a 2011 BP Blowout MDL opinion (B-1 Bundle) by presiding MDLJudge Carl Barbier) I argued that the blowout is not an admiralty tort for three reasons: 1. The tort does not satisfy the requirement of Executive Jet Aviation Co. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (Executive Jet) that it be "substantially related to a traditional maritime activity." 2. It does not satisfy the Executive Jet requirement for a "vessel." More specifically, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig or "mobile offhsore drilling unit" (MODU) does not qualify as a "vessel" under Outer Continental Shelf Act(OCSLA) sec.1333(a)(1), which, instead classifies MODUs as "temporarily attached devices (TADs). 3. In line with Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U,S,352 (1969), torts occurring on OCSLA situses are governed by the (non-admiralty) OCSLA, not by admiralty law. Rodrigue overruled the leading Fifth Circuit precedent, Snipes v. Pure Oil Co., 293 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1961), because, like the B-1 Bundle ruling in the BP MDL, it wrongly ruled that tdortgs on OCSLA situses are not "maritime" events but rather are ruled by OCSLA. A major theme of the article is that virtually all 5th Circuit OCSLA tort rulings up to the BP MDL addressed the entitlement of injured or deceased workers atop drilling rig platforms (whether fixed or TADS) whereas the unique OCSLA/Oil Pollution act of 1990 tort being litigated in the BP blowout is an action to remedy the economic and property losses incurred by tens of thousands of off-platform plaintiffs in the Gulf coastal state in consequence of the OCS oil discharge of the BP subsea and the 45/10,0000ths of the total discharge from the Deepwater Horizon. The policy argument in favor of deeming the MODU an admiralty "vessel" in the conventional injured deceased platform worker case (that the latter's recovery is dependent on that labelling) is wholly irrelevant with respect to the dissimilar OCSLA/OPA tort in the BP MDL.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Louisiana Law Review
Louisiana Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The first issue of the Louisiana Law Review went into print in November of 1938. Since then the Review has served as Louisiana"s flagship legal journal and has become a vibrant forum for scholarship in comparative and civil law topics. The article below is taken from the first issue of the Law Review. The piece was meant to commemorate the founding of the Law Review and to foreshadow the lasting impact that the Louisiana Law Review would have on state jurisprudence and legislation and on the legal landscape of Louisiana for years to come.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信