NYC Court Rejects Agent Orange Claims
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1078779507.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]A federal appeals court on Friday rejected an effort by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange to reinstate claims that U.S. companies committed war crimes by making the toxic chemical defoliant used in the Vietnam War. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it agreed with U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who ruled in March 2005 in Brooklyn that Agent Orange was used to protect U.S. troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations.
"It is significant that plaintiffs nowhere allege that the government intended to harm human beings through its use of Agent Orange," the three-judge panel said.
Jonathan C. Moore, a lawyer for the Vietnamese plaintiffs, said he was deeply disappointed.
"It's both an unjust and an immoral outcome," he said, and promised to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A lawyer for the companies did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
Monsanto, Dow Chemical and more than a dozen other companies, including Hercules Inc., Occidental Chemical Corp, Thompson Hayward Chemical Co., Harcros Chemicals Inc. and Uniroyal Chemical Co. Inc., were named in the case.
In November 1961, President Kennedy approved the launch of Operation Trail Dust, a campaign of military herbicide operations in Vietnam designed to prevent the enemy from using vegetation for cover and sustenance.
Lawyers for Vietnamese people sued U.S. companies, saying the program caused miscarriages, birth defects, breast cancer, ovarian tumors, lung cancer, Hodgkin's disease and prostate tumors.
They said the military's use of Agent Orange violated international, domestic and Vietnamese law and that companies aided the violations or committed their own by helping the military. They sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and an environmental cleanup program.
Lawyers for the companies and the U.S. government had argued that there was no evil intent when Agent Orange was used to clear the Vietnamese landscape for troops.
Agent Orange has been linked to cancer, diabetes and birth defects among Vietnamese soldiers and civilians and American veterans.
In 2002, the United States and Vietnam signed a memorandum of understanding providing for scientists from both governments to work together to determine the effects of Agent Orange on people and ecosystems, along with methods and costs of treatment and environmental remediation.
The United States, though, has never agreed it has a legal duty to provide funds or assistance to remediate harms allegedly caused by Agent Orange.
In a separate opinion, the appellate court also said companies are protected from lawsuits brought by U.S. military veterans or their relatives because the law protects government contractors in certain circumstances who provide defective products.
Related listings
-
Rezko lawyer says jail 'degrading,' pleads for release
Lawyer Blogs 02/22/2008Jailed political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko's lawyer made an emotional plea for his release from a federal lockup Wednesday, saying he is being held in "degrading" conditions where inmates must share underwear."It's disgusting, judge," chief defe...
-
Medical Device Ruling Redraws Lines on Lawsuits
Lawyer Blogs 02/22/2008The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday protecting many types of medical device makers from personal injury lawsuits began rippling through the courts and law offices almost immediately.Hours after the decision in the case, Riegel v. Medtronic, was an...
-
Supreme Court rules workers can sue over 401(k) losses
Lawyer Blogs 02/21/2008[##_1L|1228361719.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that individual participants in the most common type of retirement plan can sue under a pension protection law to recover their losses. The unanimous decision...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.