A tragedy happens. People get hurt. Lives are lost. Then the lawyers start looking around the room. Who can be held responsible?
That question sits at the center of a growing problem in American civil litigation. There’s nothing wrong with holding people and companies accountable when they actually cause harm. That’s what the justice system is supposed to do. But stretching legal theories to pull additional companies into a case because they have deeper pockets makes justice into a business model.
The 2020 explosion at Watson Grinding and Manufacturing in Houston is one of the latest examples of this problem. Three people were killed, and hundreds of nearby homes and businesses were damaged. The victims deserve justice, and any company whose negligence caused the explosion should be held accountable. But determining that responsibility begins with a simple question: Who controlled the danger?
That question is central to the litigation, which involves not only WGM but Detcon and its former parent company, 3M. Detcon supplied and serviced gas-detection equipment at the facility, but Watson Grinding operated the plant. It controlled the workers, equipment, fuel, maintenance, safety procedures, and, ultimately, whether the facility continued operating despite known hazards.
According to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, a worn hose separated and released combustible propylene gas. A manual gas-isolation valve was left open. The gas detection system had been disconnected from controls designed to trigger alarms, ventilation, and automatic shutoffs. Even more troubling, concerns about the detection system had been raised in 2013, 2016, and 2019, along with a similar propylene explosion in 2008 that should’ve raised caution.
If you own a factory, you are responsible for operating it safely. And yes, if a supplier knows about a dangerous problem and fails to warn its customer, that matters. But warning someone about a dangerous condition is not the same thing as having control over what they do about it.
Think about your mechanic. If they tell you your brakes are shot, and you ignore them, drive another 10,000 miles, and crash, nobody would reasonably argue that the mechanic should have been sitting in your driveway every morning to make sure you didn’t drive.
Yet that basic distinction gets complicated when a tragedy leaves victims with devastating losses and the company most directly responsible is bankrupt. WGM’s bankruptcy has complicated efforts to recover damages, increasing the incentive to pursue solvent co-defendants such as Detcon and 3M. But a company’s ability to pay is not evidence that it caused the harm, and the need to compensate victims cannot make it so.
Modern mass-tort litigation has gained power in America. Despite the merits of individual claims, the financial incentive to find the next enormous mass-tort case is hardly a mystery when billions of dollars can be on the line. And when lawyers push liability beyond the conduct a company actually controlled, everyone eventually gets a bill.
That’s the tort tax: higher insurance premiums, higher prices, more money spent on lawyers and businesses deciding that certain products, services, or investments simply aren’t worth the risk. Tort costs reached an estimated $529 billion in 2022, while research has found that excessive litigation contributes to higher prices for households and businesses, including in areas such as prescription drugs, home insurance, and health insurance.
That is why the Watson case matters beyond the parties involved. Companies routinely hire specialists to inspect equipment, calibrate systems, and identify problems. That doesn’t make them responsible for the company’s safety and operations writ large. If a contractor’s limited assignment can eventually become an unlimited duty to make sure a customer obeys every warning, businesses will have to price that risk into everything they do.
Some will charge more. Some will demand broader insurance coverage. Some will simply walk away from risky customers. And consumers will pay for it.
The fact is, costs don’t stay in the courtroom. They eventually reach the person buying the product, paying the insurance bill, or trying to start a business.
Victims deserve justice. Negligent companies should be held accountable. But liability should follow responsibility, control, and causation, not simply the defendant with the largest balance sheet.
SIX WEEKS AFTER OBAMA’S FUNDRAISER, A $172 MILLION TECH CASE WAS QUIETLY KILLED. CAN TRUMP EXPOSE WHY?
Otherwise, we create a system where every manufacturer, contractor, and service provider has to wonder whether helping a customer today could make it legally responsible for that customer’s decisions years from now.
That isn’t accountability. It’s simply finding someone who can afford the check.
Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, and political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, has appeared in major publications around the world.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
