MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W208274694

The Act of God Defense: Why Hurricane Katrina & Noah's Flood Don't Qualify

2007· article· en· W208274694 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Casey P. Kaplan

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œReview of litigation · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStorm surgeStormHurricane katrinaTropical cycloneFlood mythAtlantic hurricaneHistoryNatural disasterOceanographyArchaeologyGeology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For my part, I am about to bring the flood-waters upon the earth-to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is a breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.1 I. INTRODUCTION Hurricane Katrina was one of the most destructive natural disasters to occur in the United States and likely the most expensive. Insurance groups estimate the event will ultimately result in insured losses between $40 and $60 billion.2 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 115 oil and gas platforms and damaged another fifty-two platforms and 183 pipelines.3 As of late January of this year, twenty-five percent of oil production in the Gulf remains down ... .4 Hurricane Katrina was initially identified as a tropical storm in the Bahamas. Tracking across Florida on August 25 as a Category 1 hurricane, Katrina re-entered the Gulf of Mexico where it intensified to a massive Category 5 storm before making landfall on the Gulf Coast.5 In all, Katrina continued for nine days from its inception as a tropical depression on August 23 to its dissipation over Canada on August 31 .6 As the center of the storm moved across Louisiana, a storm surge, exacerbated by eastern winds, pushed through to Lake Pontchartrain.7 The surge breached the levees designed to protect the bowl of New Orleans and caused several to erode and fail. The lake water poured into the city, filling it up to the rooftops in some areas.8 Although hurricanes are nothing new to the Gulf Coast, Hurricane Katrina was in a class of its own, killing more people than any storm other than the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and the Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928 that struck Florida.9 The unstoppable nature and magnitude of these storms seems to describe aptly what are commonly called acts of God. The purpose of this Note is to explore the extent to which so-called acts serve as a defense to liability under three federal environmental statutes: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability (hereinafter CERCLA or Superfund); the oil Pollution (OPA); and the Clean Water (CWA).10 Polluters may avoid liability by appealing to an Act of defense, if they can prove a toxic spill was caused by an unanticipated extreme natural disaster, the effects of which could not have been prevented by the polluters. Although the of God defense has only been argued a handful of times, in each case the court has held that the triggering event was not an act of God.11 But the defense has never been asserted after a catastrophe the size of Hurricane Katrina.12 This Note argues that the of God defense is incongruous with the purpose of environmental statutes such as CERCLA, the oil Pollution Act, and the Clean Water Act. This is true even though Congress designed those environmental statutes by exploring and utilizing long-used common law language in the exceptions sections. Although clarifying the of God defense for courts is important, a more practical measure would be to eliminate the defense altogether. Hurricane Katrina litigation will ultimately provide courts with the perfect test case: if there was ever a storm that qualified as an of God under the environmental statutes, Katrina is surely it. Yet, given past jurisprudence, the focus of the environmental statutes on strict liability, and the courts' reliance on agency expertise, it seems this storm will be one further example of what does not constitute an of God. This Note begins with an overview of the key federal environmental statutes that include the of God defense. It then analyzes how the defense has been interpreted by the courts under each statute and how a court might apply the defense to suits following Hurricane Katrina specifically. Finally, this Note offers a way out of the muddy waters of interpretation and application surrounding the of God defense by recommending the defense's full removal from strict liability environmental statutes. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,098

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,011
Communication savante0,0070,007
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,017
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0290,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œReview of litigationMême sujetLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesTravaux en français237 207