DANBURY, Conn. Union carbide Corp. Thursday appealed one condition of a federal court decision that multibillion-dollar law- suits over the Bhopal, India gas leak should be heard in the Indian court system.
The appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York seeks to reverse a condition that only Carbide would be subject to discovery, and not the plaintiffs, said Carbide Chairman Warren Anderson.
Private attorneys in the United States and the Indian government filed separate lawsuits seeking bill- ions of dollars in damages on behalf of victims of the catastrophic leak at a Carbide pesticides plant in Bhopal.
More than 1,700 people were killed and more than 200,000 injured in December 1984 when the cloud of methyl isocyanides gas spared from the factory in what has been termed history’s worst industrial accident.
The lawsuits were consolidated in US. District Court in Manhattan, where Carbide agreed last month to conditional decision by Judge John Keenan to move the trial to India,
Carbide, which has argued from the start the lawsuits should be heard in India, agreed after clarifications were made in the ruling but reserved the right of appeal.
“We are merely objecting to the lack of reciprocity and fairness in applying US discovery rules to the defendant but not to the plain- tiffs” he said from the company’s headquarters in Danbury.
“This is important because the Indian government has not been forthcoming with information in the past.” he claimed ‘Anderson quoted a portion of Keenan’s decision that said: “While the court feels that it would be fair to bind the plaintiffs to American discovery rules, too, it has not authority to do so.
“Union Carbide’s ability to obtain information from the government of India under federal rules would also facilitate the ability of the court to determine the true facts behind the Bhopal tragedy and the extent of the resulting injuries,” he said,
Attorneys for Carbide have argued American courts might award damages based on United States, rather than Third World, standards, Lawyers for plaintiff is have contended the victims would be best served in the United States.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 18, 1986