| Page 2 of 2 < |
Victims of Katrina File Rash of Lawsuits
New Orleans television news anchorman Norman Robinson was one of the first plaintiffs in the many lawsuits of those seeking compensation over Hurricane Katrina. Officials said the damage claimed against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exceeds $278 billion.
(By Ellis Lucia -- New Orleans Times-picayune)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
But it is far from clear whether the federal government can be sued for such errors. Federal law blocks many lawsuits against the government, particularly those that threaten the discretion of government officials to act. Another law restricts lawsuits for flood damages.
The strategic challenge for the plaintiffs' attorneys is to find the kind of errors for which the government lacks immunity.
Bruno, along with a coalition of other law firms, has focused on two essential issues.
First, according to the legal filings, the construction of the shipping channel known as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet created a "hurricane highway" that allowed the storm surge to reach the city. That flooded the eastern half of New Orleans.
Second, according to the lawsuit, the improper dredging of the 17th Street Canal led to the toppling of a flood wall. That led to the inundation of the western half of the city.
But even if those allegations can be proved -- and the causes of the flooding are clouded by scientific disputes -- it is by no means clear that the government can be sued as a result.
In its response to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet allegation, papers filed by government lawyers argue that whether the channel really amounted to "a shotgun pointed straight at New Orleans," as the plaintiffs say, doesn't matter.
"Even if these allegations were true, the United States could not be held liable," they wrote.
Robert C. Longstreth, a lawyer who helped defend the United States against such cases in the mid-1980s and is the co-author of a leading treatise in that area of law, is likewise skeptical.
The allegations are too general, he said, and would have to be more focused to overcome the immunity that government officials have when making policy decisions.
The lawsuits "are phrased as overarching policy attacks," he said. "They're going to have to be much more specific in finding something that the government was required to do and didn't."
He did note, however, that one of the judge's key orders in the case seemed to indicate sympathy for the plaintiffs.
"This judge is certainly looking to give them every opportunity to prove their case," he said.
In the once-flooded sections of the city, such as New Orleans East, where roughly two-thirds of the homes are still vacant, many residents view the lawsuit against the Corps as a long shot.
But they joined anyway -- not necessarily to win some money, but to express their anger about the levees they thought were safe.
"I think they lied to us," said Don Grantz, 59, who lost his home and furniture store in the flood.
He is living out of a trailer in his front yard and stood amid his semi-deserted suburban neighborhood.
"I don't know who you blame," he said, shaking his head. "Maybe you blame yourself for living in an area like this.
"But there's no doubt about it: The levees failed."
