Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

FEMA TRAILER FORMALDEHYDE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jan 23, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeals, Fith Circuit
Juge
HIGGINBOTHAM
STEWART, C.E.
HAYNES
Numéro de référence
No. 10-30921
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Déchets et substances dangereuses, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Responsabilité/indemnisation Substances dangereuses
Résumé
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a Louisiana district court judgment dismissing complaints filed by Alabama and Mississippi residents who alleged that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) was liable for failing to warn occupants of trailers provided by FEM A of formaldehyde emissions. Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, FEM A supplied trailers, called “Emergency Housing Units,” as temporary shelter to people whose homes were destroyed. In March 2006, FEM A began receiving complaints about formaldehyde smells in trailers, and, in June 2006, FEM A began to warn about the danger of formaldehyde in a brochure provided to trailer residents. Plaintiffs, focusing on the period between March and June 2006, alleged that FEM A “persisted in not responding” to the concerns of trailer residents and failed to warn occupants about the formaldehyde dangers. In October 2007, suits related to the FEM A trailers were centralized before a multidistrict litigation court in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The government argued that under federal law, the United States is liable “to the same extent” as private individuals in similar circumstances and that in Alabama and Mississippi, the Alabama Emergency Management Act and Mississippi Emergency Management Law protect private owners who voluntarily allow their premises to be used for shelter in disasters. The district court dismissed the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appeals court affirmed, ruling that the government acted like private party owners because its provision of the trailers was voluntary, it did not receive compensation for the trailers, and its actions took place “during or in recovery from” a major disaster. According to the court, just as the state laws protect private individuals under those circumstances, they also protect the government. As an alternative, the appellants asked the Fifth Circuit to certify questions to the state supreme courts of Alabama and Mississippi regarding the meaning of the state emergency statutes, but the appeals court agreed with the district court that these questions did not warrant certification. Dismissals affirmed.
Texte intégral
COU-158074.pdf