Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 20, 1978
Decided June 26, 1978
Full case name Duke Power Company v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., et al.
Citations 438 U.S. 59 (more)
98 S. Ct. 2620; 57 L. Ed. 2d 595; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 38; 11 ERC (BNA) 1753; 8 ELR 20545; 8 ELR 20545
Prior history Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Holding
The Price Anderson Act does not violate equal protection by treating victims of nuclear accidents differently than the victims of other industrial accidents.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Burger, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
Concurrence Stewart
Concurrence Rehnquist, joined by Stevens
Concurrence Stevens
Laws applied
Price Anderson Act; U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 (1978)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Fourth Circuit's ruling that the Price Anderson Act violated equal protection by treating victims of nuclear accidents differently than the victims of other industrial accidents.

Contents

Background

Several groups filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the Price Anderson Act. The suit challenged the Act on two grounds — first, that it violated the Fifth Amendment because it did not ensure adequate compensation for victims of accidents, and that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it treats nuclear accidents differently to other accidents.

Opinion

The Court found that the differential treatments of industrial victims did not constitute a violation of equal protection based on the reasons Congress gave for liability limitations. There is no equal protection violation, since the general rationality of the Act's liability limitation, particularly with reference to the congressional purpose of encouraging private participation in the exploitation of nuclear energy, is ample justification for the difference in treatment between those injured in nuclear accidents and those whose injuries are derived from other causes.

The court summarised the circumstances leading up to the act:

  • Private industry responded to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with the development of an experimental power plant constructed under the auspices of a consortium of interested companies. It soon became apparent that profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were uncertain and the accompanying risks substantial. Although the AEC offered incentives to encourage investment, there remained in the path of the private nuclear power industry various problems - the risk of potentially vast liability in the event of a nuclear accident of a sizable magnitude being the major obstacle. Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage. Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur, but the very uniqueness of nuclear power meant that the possibility remained, and the potential liability dwarfed the ability of the industry and private insurance companies to absorb the risk. Thus, while repeatedly stressing that the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote, spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation.

The court also concluded:

  • it is clear that Congress' purpose was to remove the economic impediments in order to stimulate the private development of electric energy by nuclear power while simultaneously providing the public compensation in the event of a catastrophic nuclear incident.
  • The record supports the need for the imposition of a statutory limit on liability to encourage private industry participation and hence bears a rational relationship to Congress' concern for stimulating private industry's involvement in the production of nuclear electric energy.
  • the Price-Anderson Act does, in our view, provide a reasonably just substitute for the common-law or state tort law remedies it replaces.
  • The District Court's finding that the Act tends to encourage irresponsibility in matters of safety and environmental protection cannot withstand careful scrutiny, since nothing in the liability-limitation provision undermines or alters the rigor and integrity of the process involved in the review of applications for a license to construct or operate a nuclear power plant, and since, in the event of a nuclear accident the utility itself would probably suffer the largest damages.
  • We view the congressional assurance of a [then] $560 million fund for recovery, accompanied by an express statutory commitment, to "take whatever action is deemed necessary [438 U.S. 59, 91] and appropriate to protect the public from the consequences of" a nuclear accident, 42 U.S.C. 2210(e) (1970 ed., Supp. V), to be a fair and reasonable substitute for the uncertain recovery of damages of this magnitude from a utility or component manufacturer, whose resources might well be exhausted at an early stage.
  • There is no equal protection violation, since the general rationality of the Act's liability limitation, particularly with reference to the congressional purpose of encouraging private participation in the exploitation of nuclear energy, is ample justification for the difference in treatment between those injured in nuclear accidents and those whose injuries are derived from other causes.

See also

External links

  • ^ 438 U.S. 59 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем сделать НИР

Look at other dictionaries:

  • List of environmental lawsuits — This is a list of environmental lawsuits. *Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia Worker s Compensation Board Supreme Court of Canada 1993 *Anderson v. Cryovac *Arizona v. California Supreme Court of the United States 1931, 1934, 1936, 1963,… …   Wikipedia

  • Duke Energy — Corporation Type Public(NYSE: DUK) S P 500 Component Industry …   Wikipedia

  • Environmental Defense Fund — or EDF (formerly known as Environmental Defense) is a US based nonprofit environmental advocacy group. The group is known for its work on issues including global warming, ecosystem restoration, oceans, and human health. It is nonpartisan, and its …   Wikipedia

  • Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act — The Price Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability related issues for all non military nuclear …   Wikipedia

  • Nuclear and radiation accidents — This article is about nuclear and radiation accidents in general. For a list of military nuclear accidents, see List of military nuclear accidents. For a list of civilian nuclear accidents, see List of civilian nuclear accidents. For a discussion …   Wikipedia

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 438 — This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 438 of the United States Reports :* Houchins v. KQED, Inc. , ussc|438|1|1978 * United States v. Grayson , ussc|438|41|1978 * Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study… …   Wikipedia

  • Nuclear power in the United States — For a comprehensive list of U.S. plants, see List of nuclear reactors. NRC regions and locations of nuclear reactors, 2008 Main article: Nuclear power As of 2008, nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 commercial reactors (69 …   Wikipedia

  • Economics of new nuclear power plants — The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multi billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Nuclear power plants typically have high capital… …   Wikipedia

  • North Carolina — This article is about the U.S. state of North Carolina. For other uses, see North Carolina (disambiguation). The Old North State redirects here. For the song of the same name, see The Old North State (song). State of North Carolina …   Wikipedia

  • History of North Carolina — This article is about the history of the U.S. state of North Carolina. For information on the state today, see North Carolina. Map of the coast of Virginia and North Carolina, drawn 1585–1586 by Theodor de Bry, based on map by John White of the… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”