Damage Caused By Oil Spills - Essay Example

Legislations That Have Been Implemented To Minimize the Damage Caused By Oil Spills Oil spills impose an uncalled for and profound impact on the environment. It can be in the form of immediate or long-term effect. It has been noted that a few of the impacts caused from oil spills can remain for decades harming the well-being of the people and consequently the environment. In order to mitigate the issues or the impact associated with oil spills, certain legislations have been enacted by the legal authorities. One such legislation is the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). The law was enacted post Exxon Valdez incident. It has been introduced with the intention to prevent as well as respond to any incident of oil spill by enhancing the ability of the government in terms of monetary resources. As per the law, a Liability Trust Fund has been created which will aid financial support to deal with oil spill incidents (EPA, 2014). Another law that has been enacted with regard to mitigating the damage caused by oil spills is US Code of Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation. According to the code, a legal liability is provided to the victims where they can claim for a certain sum for the loss occurred from oil spills by a company or an individual. The compensation covers leaking, spilling, pumping or pouring of oil that can affect the environment negatively (Findlaw, 2014). Protection of Wetlands in the United States (US) Wetlands in the US include those areas of the country that are saturated by surface or ground water at a greater frequency. These typical lands are most preferred for the purpose of vegetation. It is regarded as a crucial part of the water resources of the nation. The government of the US has taken certain initiatives to protect the wetlands from the external effects and attain long-term sustainability for the same. One of the measures adopted by the government of the nation is the watershed approach. This particular approach intends to identify the interconnectedness amid water and land with the wetlands. Subsequently, solutions are developed to address the issues or the factors that lead to the degradation of these lands. Furthermore, the government of the nation has also emerged with certain legislations that are concentrated towards protecting the wetlands. One such legislation is the Clean Water Act. As per this particular legislation, the government of the nation focuses on controlling the degraded materials that are being discharged in the wetlands. Discharges mainly emerge from projects such as construction, port development and water control projects such as dam construction among others. The law prevents the discharge of of soil and other materials on the water in excess of a particular specified amount to eliminate the danger of wetland degradation (U. S Geological Survey, n.d.). Disclaim Liability for Damage In terms of property damage, there are certain laws that have been enacted owing to which people can claim for damages caused from the negative approach or negligence. However, individual or business units often deny for claim against a particular damage. This can be apparently seen in the cases of LOVELACE v. FIGURE SALON, INC and NATIONAL CANDY WHOLESALERS, INC. v. CHIPURNOI, INC. Lovelace v. Figure Salon, Inc In this particular case held in the Court of Appeals of Georgia, the plaintiffs i.e. Marilyn Lovelace and her husband prosecuted a fitness facilities business run by named My Fair Lady. The business provides fitness equipment to its clients with the aim of improving their health and fitness. However, Marilyn Lovelace got injured from the equipment provided by My Fair Lady. The business further denied from entertaining any of the claims of the plaintiff on the ground of the contract signed amid the two parties. The defendant claimed that the contract signed by the plaintiff clearly mentioned that the use of the equipment by the customers for any exercise is entirely at their own risk. Hence, the defendant denied to entertain any claim of the plaintiff on the aforementioned ground (Leagle, Inc. 2014). National Candy Wholesalers, Inc. V. Chipurnoi, Inc In this particular case, National Candy Wholesalers, Inc (NCW) had taken a particular space of Atlanta Civic Center for lease. The company further provided a portion of the lease space to manufacturers of candies to showcase their products among which Chipurnoi was also included. A contract was signed amid the two parties where it was clearly ascertained that NCW will not be responsible for injury or other harm of any of the people who visit the space for the work related to Chipurnoi or other manufacturer. Hence, NCW will not entertain any of the claims from the end of Chipurnoi or other manufacturers of candy (Justia, n.d.). Reasoned Opinion In the above examples, it is quite apparent that companies operating their business in Georgia often tend to disclaim or deny claim of victims from the use of their products. However, it can be affirmed that there are certain cases where the approach of business units for not to entertain the claim of the victims can be justified. This can be better comprehended from the case example of Lovelace v. Figure Salon, Inc. In that particular case the defendant i.e. the business unit denied to accept the claim of the plaintiff i.e. the customer which can further be depicted as justifiable. This can be supported from certain facts presented in the case. Notably, as per the business unit, Marilyn Lovelace i.e. the customer signed a contract with regard to the use of fitness equipment offered. It has been analyzed that the contract clearly mentioned that all the treatments and exercises along with the equipment used by the customers i.e. in this case Marilyn Lovelace should be at their own risk. This aspect also depicts that Marilyn Lovelace is not legally liable to get compensation for her injury from the business. Furthermore, it has also been noted that the clause also clearly mentioned about the aspect that My Fair Lady Salon will not be liable for any injury along with damages caused from the products or services of the business (Leagle, Inc. 2014). Hence, the approach of the business for not entertaining the claim of the customers can be justified from these facts presented above. References EPA. (2014). Oil Pollution Act overview. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm Findlaw. (2014). 33 U.S.C. § 2701: US code - section 2701: Definitions. Retrieved from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/33/40/I/2701 Justia. (n.d.). Nat. Candy Wholesalers v. Chipurnoi, Inc. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/1986/73200.html Leagle, Inc. (2014). Lovelace v. Figure Salon, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1986230179GaApp51_1210.xml/LOVELACE%20v.%20FIGURE%20SALON,%20INC. U. S Geological Survey. (n.d.). Wetland protection legislation. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/legislation.html Read More