A federal court in San Francisco recently dismissed lawsuits against the world's leading automakers for their alleged contributions to global warming. In late 2006, the State of California filed state and federal public nuisance claims in federal court against Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and the U.S. subsidiaries of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. The suits alleged that the companies were liable for the harm associated with global warming caused by vehicles they manufactured. In California v. General Motors Corporation, et al., Judge Martin Jenkins granted defendants' Motion to Dismiss, holding that the federal global warming nuisance claim was a political question to be decided first by the executive and legislative branches, not by the courts. In the absence of a valid federal claim, the district court also dismissed the plaintiff's state law nuisance action.
In his decision, Judge Jenkins explained that the court was unable to rule until the elected branches of government make policy determinations concerning climate change. The judge emphasized that it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to make these types of policy decisions. In addition, the judge found that plaintiff's claim raised constitutional concerns, including Congress' enumerated powers over interstate commerce and foreign policy. The court explained that California's efforts to burden the interstate market for automobiles would undermine the federal government's interstate commerce authority. A judgment against the automakers would not only penalize them for lawfully selling their vehicles in California, but would also seek to punish these companies for lawful sales occurring in the national and global market. The court believed this would implicate foreign policy issues that are beyond the scope of the judiciary. The court found that it was without any manageable standard by which to determine if the automobile companies had contributed an unreasonable amount of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. The judge found there to be no prescribed methods to allocate liability when an infinite number of sources may be responsible for climate change.
This complaint is among several recent lawsuits filed against industry for its alleged contributions to global warming. On August 30, 2007 a federal court in Mississippi dismissed a lawsuit against major oil companies, chemical manufacturers, and several trade associations for their alleged contributions to global warming and consequential property damage resulting from Hurricane Katrina. In Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., property owners alleging damages from Hurricane Katrina filed suit seeking monetary relief. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants' continued emissions of greenhouse gases intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina, resulting in greater damage to the plaintiffs' properties. The amended complaint alleged various tort law claims, including negligence, trespass, private nuisance, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.
In a ruling from the bench, Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit. The court found that the alleged injuries could not be attributed fairly to the individual defendants, and that consequently the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims. Judge Guirola specifically noted that "all of us are responsible for the emissions of CO2 and ultimately greenhouse gases which cause global warming . . . [and these] are instead injuries which are attributable to a larger group that are not before this Court."
In dismissing the case, the district judge also relied on the "political question" doctrine. Like the California decision, Judge Guirola ruled that the plaintiffs' claims raised political questions appropriate only for the executive or legislative branches of government. Noting that a large number of states have already enacted climate change legislation, he explained that the responsibility of establishing climate change policies is vested in Congress, not the courts. In 2005, a New York federal court in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company dismissed similar public nuisance complaints against coal-fired utilities alleging injuries from global warming, finding the claims raised non-justiciable political questions. The trial court concluded that these matters were not appropriate for judicial consideration. The case is on appeal and a decision by the court of appeals in that case is expected soon. In the recent Comer and General Motors decisions, as well as the 2005 American Electric Power decision, the district judges concluded that the judiciary is precluded from making initial policy determinations that require the balancing of economic, environmental, and foreign policies, as well as national security interests. The court held that such initial determinations are the province of the legislative and executive branches.
The recent General Motors case in California, the Comer case in Mississippi, and the American Electric Power case in New York are but a few of the lawsuits brought by entities seeking redress for the alleged impacts of global climate change. These cases continue a trend of using common law claims such as nuisance, public nuisance, or other tort claims to seek redress where plaintiffs contend that the absence of a regulatory regime or an inadequate regulatory regime fails to provide adequate environmental protection.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.