Latest News

California says Exxon's recycling claims developed a 'public problem.' What does that mean?

California's lawsuit on Monday accusing Exxon of sustaining worldwide plastic waste pollution by misleading the general public about the constraints of recycling is the most recent in a line of recent cases based upon a centuriesold legal theory referred to as public annoyance. Here is a look at how public annoyance claims work, how such claims have fared and what it might mean for California's effort.

WHAT IS PUBLIC NUISANCE?

A public problem claim is one that can be brought against defendants based on behavior that disrupts a right that belongs to the general public, rather than to an individual. Often mentioned examples consist of an obstacle obstructing a public road, contamination in a public waterway or a factory that discharges a. toxic gas.

Unlike accident cases, public annoyance cases, which. are often brought by local governments, do not look for damages to. compensate plaintiffs for an injury. Rather, they seek to make. the celebration responsible for the annoyance pay to abate, or fix, the. condition. The amount of money the accused need to pay depends upon. the cost of abatement.

HOW DOES CALIFORNIA'S CLAIM FIT IN?

California's case is one of many current lawsuits that try to. apply the idea of public problem more broadly than it has. been utilized historically. Rather than accusing Exxon of straight. polluting public land or water, the state says the company. tricked the general public for decades into thinking plastic recycling. was much more effective than it is, encouraging an extensive. throw away lifestyle of non reusable plastic items.

The state says that, in turn, resulted in more widespread plastic. contamination, which can be traced directly to Exxon's conduct. It. is looking for to make Exxon pay the cost of abating the pollution,. with the quantity yet to be determined.

Exxon has actually denied the accusations, arguing that recycling. works which California itself failed to correct problems in. its recycling system.

California and others have actually formerly used a comparable theory. in suing Exxon and other oil companies for presumably covering. their own knowledge about nonrenewable fuel sources and environment modification. Many. of those have been tied up for many years in legal fights over which. courts have jurisdiction to hear them.

HOW HAVE OTHER CURRENT PUBLIC NUISANCE SUITS FARED?

Numerous recent public nuisance claims have not been checked at. trial, however some have ended in big settlements. Significantly, opioid. drug producers, suppliers and pharmacies have actually settled. with state and city governments across the country for close to $50. billion over claims they sustained an epidemic of dependency and. overdose deaths.

Nevertheless, a federal judge turned down public problem claims in. one opioid case, brought by a West Virginia city and county,. that did go to trial. The case is presently on appeal.

Broad public annoyance claims have actually had some success in. California. San Francisco won its public annoyance opioid case. against Walgreens, which then accepted settle for $230. million last year instead of pursue an appeal.

The state's highest court in 1997 ruled that gang activity. could be a public problem, and in 2017 ruled that three. companies had created a public nuisance with lead paint used. throughout the state and should pay to abate it.

There are limits, nevertheless; a state court judge in June. turned down public nuisance claims by school districts implicating. social networks business of motivating addiction among their. students.

HAVE ANY SIMILAR CLAIMS BEEN SUBMITTED OVER PLASTIC POLLUTION?

Yes. New York last year brought a public nuisance lawsuit. implicating PepsiCo of fueling plastic contamination with its. single-use plastic bottles, caps and wrappers. U.S. environmental group Earth Island Institute in 2020 brought. similar claims versus Pepsi and others including Coca-Cola. and Nestle, which a judge earlier this year. enabled to go forward. The lawsuits remain pending.

CAN CALIFORNIA'S CLAIM GO FORWARD IF THE COURT TURNS DOWN THE. PUBLIC PROBLEM THEORY?

Yes. In addition to its public nuisance claim, California is. bringing claims under the state's unfair business practices,. incorrect marketing and ecological contamination laws. Even without. a public nuisance claim, the suit might bring in significant. damages if effective.

(source: Reuters)