Torts and Risk the First

¶ … Torts and Risk

The first common tort relates to the direct disregard of the law regarding the Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicable tort is Duty of Care, where the negligence of this duty resulted in danger to the public. As a business that functions within the public sphere and depends upon the public for its survival, Alumina has a responsibility towards the safety of the public. The risks inherent in noncompliance with the law is possible imprisonment, a fine, and/or an erosion of the company's public image.

In order to mitigate the legal ramifications of imprisonment or fines, Alumina can negotiate with officials to implement compliance practices within a predetermined time frame. The erosion of public image can be mitigated by concomitant press releases stating the planned compliance procedures.

Restricting the release of the EPA report is not a viable mitigation of risk, as it further violates public policy, in terms of the Freedom of Information Act (1966). The public should be allowed to have full access to the EPA report, especially as it relates to other mitigation measures such as the compliance issues mentioned above.

Investigating the background of any official is dangerous ground, especially in the light of apparent guilt. This also is not a viable mitigation method, as such investigation could return no results, and carries the risk of the Invasion of Privacy tort. It is best to admit responsibility and mitigate the effects of such admission as well as possible.

The best practice would have been to avoid the first occurring tort, which is negligence. Alumina should have taken preventative measures to avoid such negligence in the first place. Being aware of the Clean Water Act (1972), Alumina should also have taken measures to familiarize themselves with the EPA standards, procedures and requirements as these relate to the Act. Failing to do so created a number of further torts and legal issues.

Both the torts of product and strict liability became issues when preventative measures were not implemented. Product liability relates to the product a company creates. When such products pose a danger to public health, the company is subject to product liability. It should be emphasized that it is not the product itself that poses a public health danger, but rather the byproduct, in the form of harmful chemicals. The inadequate disposal of these chemicals can then also result in strict liability, where the company is directly responsible for ill health or even death.

In order to prevent product liability, Alumina could have taken responsibility to familiarize themselves and follow the guidelines proposed by the EPA. Noncompliance results in risks to human health. Failing preventative measures, corrective action should be taken to ensure that guidelines are followed in the future (Landlin, 2005).

Alumina could also be liable in terms of Toxic Torts and the Nuisance Tort, where the chemicals spilled into the river poses a direct public health hazard. It is inconvenient for the citizens in the vicinity of the river in question to be subjected to the dangers caused by Alumina. A related case of Toxic Torts occurred in East Anglia, where chemicals from a factory seeped into a dam (Barcelona Field Studies Centre, 2009).

The best risk management method is prevention. While Alumina's current situation is somewhat dire, the company can learn from its mistakes and attempt to prevent the same thing from occurring in the future. One measure that can be taken in this regard is to fully assess the current situation in terms of the amount of danger caused, the amount of people affected, and the mitigation measures necessary to eliminate the health risk. A cost analysis should also be conducted to quantify the financial risk, especially in the future (.

The risk of public image can be mitigated by taking the option of settlement via arbitration or mediation. Alumina's guilt and wrongdoing cannot be denied. Being subjected to a court battle that will probably be lost is both unnecessary and highly risky in terms of costs and loss of reputation. To save both, settlement is probably the best option. Indeed, the negative reports in the press regarding the company has caused damage enough.

The way forward is then to take corrective action followed by preventative action. Corrective action entails both legal and public actions. Legally, Alumina should settle the issue outside of court and admit its wrongdoing to EPA officials. The company should then implement disposal methods that comply with the EPA standards.

Publicly, Alumina should admit wrongdoing, but emphasize its corrective efforts for the future. In addition, and to improve its public image, the company should also offer to pay compensation for any medical costs or other problems that arose from the pollution they caused. This will provide them with much more goodwill from the public and allow the company to continue existing and implement preventative measures.