Morelli Ratner PC works with a wide variety of cases, but our primary focus is on:
When there are large numbers of claims associated with a single product, they may be part of a mass tort. It basically means that an act of negligence on the part of an individual or company resulted in injuring many people. Many factors are considered when deciding if a claim should be part of a mass tort.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that ExxonMobil can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute for the murder and torture of Indonesian villagers.
The Blog of the Legal Timesquotes the majority opinion as stating that “The law of the United States has been uniform since its founding that corporations can be held liable for the torts committed by their agents.”
It now seems overwhelmingly likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant cert in an Alien Tort Statute case in the near future (which could mean as early as this fall): The D.C. Circuit’s A.T.S. ruling stands in direct conflict with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in September 2010, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. At the Lawfare blog, John Bellinger arguesthat the D.C. Circuit’s split with the 2nd Circuit may well increase the likelihood of the Supreme Court hearing Kiobel itself this fall.
In any event, an Alien Tort Statute case at the Court would be quite interesting.
Mike Scarcella at the BLT also notes that in the dissent in last week’s case, Judge Kavanaugh argued that
the Alien Tort Statute does not reach conduct that occurs in a foreign country. The statute, the judge said, gives aliens access to federal courts for action that occurred in the United States.
…
The judge also said the United States government has expressed concern that allowing the tort claims to proceed with [will] harm foreign policy interests.
Of course, the foreign policy concern that Kavanaugh imputes to the government does not represent the only reasonable interpretation of foreign policy interests at stake in the Alien Tort Statute. Different administrations put different premiums on the protection of human rights and corporate profits, respectively. While some might agree with the view Kavanaugh cites, others might well calculate that U.S. interests are best served by the promotion of human rights and the rule of law, not by allowing corporations to operate lawlessly and with impunity in foreign countries.
-Benedict P. Morelli and David S. Ratner
Questions, comments, tips, or blog post ideas? Email us at blog@morellilaw.com
