Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Bulletin
Case Law Review Archive
California Sues Automakers for Global Warming
At CW we like to keep an eye on litigation and coverage
developments across the border, since its fairly common
for Canada to follow suit (literally). A recent example of
this phenomenon would be the British Columbia government
suing the tobacco industry to try to recover billions of dollars
in health care costs.
California is now launching a similar attack on automakers
for the economic impact of global warming.
On September 20, 2006, the Attorney General of California
sued General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and
Nissan claiming that the environmental impacts of global
warming are a "public nuisance" for which the automakers
should be held liable at law. The first paragraph of the
"Complaint" filed in the U.S. District Court in California
reads as follows:
"Right now, global warming is harming California,
its environment, its economy, and the health and
well-being of its citizens. Scientific debate is over:
the massive atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases resulting from human
activity has changed the climate and will further change
the climate over the next decades. Human-induced
global warming has, among other things, reduced
California’s snow pack (a vital source of fresh water),
caused an earlier melting of the snow pack, raised sea
levels along California’s coastline, increased ozone
pollution in urban areas, increased the threat of wildfires,
and cost the State millions of dollars in [assessing/
addressing those impacts]."
The legal basis for the lawsuit is said to be the tort of "public
nuisance", i.e. that the automakers, by manufacturing motor
vehicles which emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
have knowingly created or contributed to global warming which
constitutes a substantial and unreasonable interference with
public rights of comfort, safety, natural resources and public
property and aesthetic/ecological values.
The Complaint of the Attorney General claims that emissions
from motor vehicles manufactured by the six Defendants
account for approximately nine percent of the worlds carbon
dioxide emissions and over 30 percent of emissions from
sources within California. Such vehicle emissions, it claims,
"are the single most rapidly growing source of carbon dioxide
emissions in the United States". The effects of such global
warming are said to have caused the State of California to
suffer billions of dollars in damages for which the State is
seeking to hold each automaker jointly and severally liable.
The lawsuit, if it survives, will be tried before a jury.
It will be interesting to see whether similar lawsuits come to be
filed in other States or in Canada. Certainly, if big tobacco
litigation is anything to judge by, this is a distinct possibility. Of
course, notwithstanding what the California Complaint asserts,
each such lawsuit is going to involve considerable debate not
only about the science of global warming but, perhaps more
importantly from a legal point of view, whether there is a proper
basis in law for holding automakers, or indeed anyone else,
liable for the effects of global warming. Another question which
needs to be asked is if the big contributors can be held liable,
are smaller contributors also exposed? Would not everybody
who drives a car, or, dare we say it, who emits a little gas, be
subject to the same suit? While global warming is nothing to joke
about, one might ask if the state shouldn't first clean up its own
emissions before seeking redress in the courts.
A copy of the Complaint filed in the California lawsuit can be
found here.
If readers have any questions respecting the tort of "nuisance"
generally, feel free to contact Nigel Kent (tel: 604.643.3135,
email: npk@cwilson.com )
or any other member of the Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Practice Group.
