Legal Experts Say Alcan Could Be Responsible For Flood Damage

Sunday, December 16, 2007 05:01 AM

Prince George, B.C. - At least two legal experts say Alcan (Rio Tinto) could be liable for damages that occur as a result of flooding in Prince George if it can be shown that the release of a large flow of water contributed or caused the flooding in the city.

One legal authority says that Alcan is not exempt under the BC Hydro and Power Authority Act. Under that act BC Hydro cannot be found liable for flooding that occurs as a result of their releases.

Two legal experts oagreee “Once damage is established then the onus is upon Alcan (Rio Tinto) to prove that they didn’t cause the flood or part of it. "

The legal argument is found in Rylands Vs Fletcher, it forms the basis for most of the liability claims that are made.

It is known that during the last flood that occurred in 1997 in the area, at least one Vanderhoof resident received compensation for his flood damage from an insurance company representing Alcan. In that instance the home owner had to sign an agreement that they would not reveal any information related to that settlement

The company has not responded to Opinion 250’s phone calls.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 05:01 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Jim13135 on December 16 2007 8:59 AM

Great...lets just spend a few million dollars suing them, after all they made all the ice didn't they?

And wasn't it one of our provincial governments that canned, what was it called, Kemano completion project? Where they would have had the ability to divert excess water away from the Nechako system??

Posted by: herbster on December 16 2007 10:57 AM

If a company wanted to get the Kemano completion deal done, then flooding out any towns downstream of Kenney Dam might be a pretty effective strategy. Especially if they are not going to be held for any damages. In fact let the poor flooded out suckers whine about the NDP! What has Alcan to say about this mess? Nothing! Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: editor on December 16 2007 11:30 AM

There is very little point in trying to point out the facts to people like Jim13135; they only believe what they say.
The facts are;

1 Alcan cannot spill water through the turbines without making power, Kemano completion with 16 turbines or for that matter if you had 50 and you cannot put water through them and you are trying to keep your reservoir at maximum capacity, what would Jim 13135 do with that water?

2 One of their two transmissions lines was
knocked out by snow last winter and they could only produce 40% of the power that they normally do. No ability to make power, no need for turbines, no need for turbines, no need for water.

3 If you cannot divert the water and you cannot manufacture power, Jim 13135 will be hard pressed to drink it all.

4. Common sense would tell you that Kemano completion would have done absolutely nothing to prevent what happened.

5 Finally , Alcan is not obligated to either spill or not spill water at our beck and call, they are in control of the reservoir and can spill water into the Nechako when ever they please.

Ben Meisner

Posted by: owl on December 16 2007 2:21 PM

"Once damage is established then the onus is upon Alcan (Rio Tinto) to prove that they didn�t cause the flood or part of it."

Hey neat. If things were only that simple.

So in an analogous situation all we have to do is establish that there is damage to the PG airshed, then the industry that is putting �stuff� into the air have to prove that they didn�t cause the damage. Otherwise they are responsible.

Good luck in both cases.

Experts, eh????

;-)

Posted by: owl on December 16 2007 2:25 PM

BTW, Raylands vs Fletcher is a case from 1865 and deals with strict liability .... it might be a nice case to deal with in law school about abnormally dangerous activities .. but have fun applying it in this case ....

;-)