We’ve previously covered the ludicrous billion-dollar oyster fishermen lawsuits in Louisiana (Sep. 10; May 25; Oct. 18, 2003), where a jury awarded a sum greater than the value of the last century of oyster harvests to oyster fishermen who had a slightly reduced harvest because of a coastal conservation project that changed the beds’ salinity. The Louisiana Supreme Court decided to enforce the “hold harmless” provision in the $2/acre leases that the lower courts ignored, and unanimously voted to toss the judgment; the plaintiffs get zero. For the first time, the press coverage notes that the oyster fishermen negotiated for the clauses as a compromise in 1989 when the state indicated that they were not going to renew the leases to avoid precisely the issue of liability for changed salinity levels–alas, I see no indication that the state will sue the fishermen for breaking that promise in their contract. The refusal of courts to enforce immunity clauses (and laws) is all too often a problem. Louisiana taxpayers should be pleased that the state stood on principle and refused the plaintiffs’ proposal to settle for less than thirteen cents on the dollar of the verdict. (Jeffrey Meitrodt, “Oyster farmers’ award overturned”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Oct. 20; Janet McConnaughey, “Court throws out $1.3 billion judgment in oyster lease case”, AP, Oct. 20). The AP gives a soapbox to the plaintiffs in an article that has no acknowledgement of the fundamental unfairness of their claim. (Cain Burdeau, AP, “Caernarvon ruling leaves oystermen seething”, Oct. 20).
Comments are closed.