Massey Energy's negligence liability in the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion

Massey Energy Co.'s Liability

Over the last several decades a change has occurred in the public sector, where less emphasis has been placed on effectively regulating different industries. Coal mining is no exception, as the industry has seen a shift with a greater emphasis placed on allowing the various mines to function with less scrutiny. This has caused the focus to be placed on increasing the overall bottom line at all costs, even if it means that the company is knowingly violating the law. A good example of this can be seen with the recent explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine, in West Virginia, owned by Massey Energy. Where, 29 people died in one of the worst coal mining accidents in decades. What makes this situation so troubling; is that Massey Energy had 515 violations for safety from federal regulators in 2009 and 124 violations this year. ("Obama Blames Owner for West Virginia Mine Disaster," 2010) This is significant because it underscores a trend that is occurring with the company, where they are knowingly violating the directives of federal regulators and putting their profits ahead of everything else. As a result, the company should face severe liabilities in the form of negligence, for their conduct leading up to the accident at the Upper Big Branch Mine. To prove this you would have to show: that the company violated the standard of negligence, their past conduct to support this claim and how the company attempted to prevent the enforcement of different safety regulations. Together, these various elements will show how Massey Energy is negligible under the law for the tragedy that occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine.

The Standard of Negligence

To prove that Massey Energy is guilty of negligence requires examining the four different legal preconditions that must be established under the law. This would include the following elements: the duty to use care, injury, cause and a breach of responsibility / duty. The duty to use care is when: you must establish that the party who is negligent was responsible to the other party / parties in some way. (Kent, 1993) in this particular case, Massey Energy would have a responsibility to use care when examining matters surrounding the safety of the mine. This is because they were citied 515 times last year and no action was taken by the company, which means it is reasonable to imply that they clearly breached this precondition. ("Obama Blames Owner for West Virginia Mine Disaster," 2010)

Injury is when you must show that an actual loss or damage occurred because of these actions. (Kent, 1993) in the case of the Upper Big Branch Mine, this is obvious because 29 people died from the lack of actions undertaken by the company. ("Obama Blames Owner for West Virginia Mine Disaster," 2010)

Cause is when you are showing that there is a direct link between the actions or lack of actions and the damages that occurred. (Kent, 1993) in the case of Massey Energy, this can easily be demonstrated by the repeated violations that the company received from regulators over the last two years. Where, the inability of the mine to fix the repeated safety violations would help contribute to the accident. ("Obama Blames Owner for West Virginia Mine Disaster," 2010)

Breach of responsibility / duty is when one party failed to exercise the proper amount of care pertaining to the actions they were engaged in. Under this basic legal principal, you must use the reasonably prudent person's doctrine. This is where you are asking if the defendant acted in a responsible manner under the circumstances. (Kent, 1993) in the case of Massey Energy, they did not do this because they never fixed, much less addressed the different safety violations. ("Obama Blames Owner for West Virginia Mine Disaster," 2010)

A side from the issue of negligence, Massey was also in violation of the law by allowing the Upper Big Branch Mine to continue running despite the obvious safety concerns. The two different acts that the company was in violation of were: the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act along with the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act. Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, the company continued to ignore the safety directives of federal officials. This is a violation of the act, by not ensuring that high quality safety standards were in place at all times and by not fixing any violations. ("History of Mine Safety and Health Legislation," 2010) the company violated the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act by not having any kind of emergency response plan in place. What all of this shows; is that Massey Energy has continually violated the law despite the fact that they were cited by federal officials 515 times. ("Obama Blames Owner for West Virginia Mine Disaster," 2010) as a result, one can easily establish that the company is negligent for the accident that occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine.

How Massey Energy tried to prevent the Enforcement of different Safety Regulations

To effectively tie up federal regulators Massey engaged in a legal procedure to slow any kind of possible legal actions, which is: appealing the various citations. What happens is: when the company would be cited for a serious violation that could potentially close the mine, they would appeal the citation. During the process of appealing, the mine could remain open and the regulators were powerless to act. Last year of the 50 serious violations that Massey received for the Upper Big Branch Mine, they appealed 37 of them. This includes two violations from federal officials on coal dust accumulating at various areas throughout the mine, one month before the accident. (Gardiner, 2010) What all of this shows, is that despite the obvious infractions that were occurring, the company would aggressively fight the most serious violations by appealing them. This in itself; is the company using various legal tactics to prevent them from following the provisions of the law. Therefore, one could effectively argue that Massey Energy is liable for negligence, based upon the fact that they tried to intentionally delay any kind of possible actions for knowingly violating the law.

Clearly, Massey Energy willfully violated the law on numerous occasions at the Upper Big Branch Mine. These actions resulted in the deaths of 29 miners because the company refused to comply with the different safety provisions. Then, when you examine the company's track record on the issue of safety, it is obvious that they only wanted to increase the overall bottom line at any cost. This can be seen with the consistent accidents and violations that have occurred at different mines that the company owns, the most notable being the Acroma Alma Mine. In this particular case, the company was cited and charged with violating federal law. Where, it would plead guilty to 10 different counts and pay a $4.2 million fine in 2008. This is troubling because it underscores how the top management at Massey Energy did not care about the issue of safety at any of their mines. If they did, then the company would have a procedure in place to address issues of mine safety, which would have meant that they never would have received the 515 violations at the Upper Big Branch Mine in 2009. Instead, the company decided to aggressively appeal the different citations that they would receive. This underscores the overall sense of arrogance and disregard for the law from top management all the way down. When you apply this background to the issue of negligence, it is obvious that the plaintiffs would be able to make compelling legal arguments to support this fact.