MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W208274694

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

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

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œReview of litigation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorm surgeStormHurricane katrinaTropical cycloneFlood mythAtlantic hurricaneHistoryNatural disasterOceanographyArchaeologyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œReview of litigationSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207