Buffalo Creek Case

Buffalo Creek Case centered around a dam that collapsed on February 26, 1972. The catastrophe was huge, as the dam collapsed and disappeared in a matter of minutes with no warning. The result was that 125 people were killed, and hundreds of individuals in the area were injured and left without residences.

Many of the residences had had enough time to race to the hillside above the valley were the dam lay in order to survive the catastrophe and escape devastating injury, many people not only lost their homes, but also everything they owned. The communities surrounding the dam were totally wiped out (Smith 2004). The coal company that owned this dam began to settle claims, but the claims were relatively small in comparison with the actual loss most of the people underwent.

Therefore, the residents approached Arnold & Porter for help, a company that had recently helped win a large claim for other West Virginia coal miners (Arnold and Porter 2002). Arnold & Porter decided to assist and the suit brought an innovative concept to the forefront by trying to discuss the psychological, not just the physical loss, the survivors had to suffer from. The suit was filed against Pittston, the major coal company that supposedly owned the dam.

After this decision was made, the major issue that emerged in the issue was that of jurisdiction. The notion was put in place to bring the case to West Virginia in federal court, rather than addressing this in state court. Therefore, in an attempt to keep this jurisdiction, Pittston was the only company named in the claim, argued under the concept of a corporate veil theory (Smith 2002). The concept of jurisdiction in this case was an interesting concept, and under further analysis, it demonstrates a brilliant stroke.

By pinning the majority of the blame on one entity using the corporate veil theory, the prosecution was able to increase its chances of winning because it now only had one major company to battle, rather than having to battle everybody involved in the building of the dam. By focusing the jurisdiction in this direction, the prosecution was able to assure a more successful case for itself. In light of focus, we can see how battling one major company is much easier than battling several in any court case.

This way, the will be a better focus and obviously far fewer resources involved on the defense's side. Therefore, while this move seemed like a relatively minor one, it was actually a major issue, and one the defense tried to challenge. Besides this challenge, the other item the defense attempted to challenge was the claim of psychological distress. The defense wanted a better definition of this claim, and the concept of "survivor syndrome" was brought to the forefront of this case (Smith 2002).

The idea of using psychological distress as a means for a suit was entirely new, and also a brilliant move on the part of the prosecution.