Liberal Answer? ....Boycott BP!

[Timshel]

A large part of what you are saying seems to be driven by sheer vindictiveness and blind emotion rather than any cool assessment of the real facts. I am assuming that you are equally vocal about the Dow Chemical company and Bhopal? You all talk about cleanups, so who the fuck is paying for the cleanup of Bhopal? Answer, fucking no one; so how many brown people are equal to one pelican, in the eyes of the US legal system?

http://www.bhopal.org/

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47277

What I am saying is driven by a commitment to due process. BP has damaged the individual rights of others and should be held liable.

What happened in Bhopal has nothing to do with this. I don't know much about that, but if Dow is responsible they should be made to pay for the damages. I don't care where the company is headquartered.

 

[Liberty]

or the taxpayers. Is there anyone here who really believes that BP will pay the entire cost of this fiasco or that they will tie this up in court and hire a ton of PR dudes and Washington lobbyist to limit the scope of damages being paid? You'd have to be a blind partisan BP stock holder to believe the former meaning the US taxpayers are going to foot the bill.

I would have to agree with you.

My company is one of the companies sueing BP. This crap has really slowed down business and I bet they get out of most all their $ obligations.

 

[Timshel]

BP gasoline is sold at independently owned gas stations who happened to sign a contract to sell BP gas. These station owners are not responsible for something that happened on an oil rig 50 miles out at sea. They are moms and pops who probably spent their retirement money opening a small business to sell gas, and by sheer coincidence, happen to sell BP gas. THAT is who you are going to punish?

BP owns many of the stations. Its partners did not go into business with BP by sheer coincidence. What kind of nonsense is that.

I also would like to know, when was a thorough investigation completed on this? Has it been determined without any doubt, this was due to BP negligence? If so, I am all with you on holding BP fully accountable and responsible, but from what I have heard, there is still speculation as to what actually happened, where the system failed, and who/what was to blame. I think, before we destroy the company, which in turn destroys thousands of jobs and third party businesses that have nothing to do with BP, we should first consider this.

Of course, there should be a court trial over disputed claims. BP will be held to strict liability in the cases arising under federal law. There is no need to prove negligence. For the state level cases there may be a burden on the plaintiffs to prove negligence, but it seems pretty clear that that will not be difficult to prove. I think they should be held to held to strict liability in the property damage cases. It was not an "act of God," and therefore BP is responsible for damages.

There is NO doubt that BP is responsible here, whether they were negligent or not. But, if BP disputes a claim then, certainly, they should get a court case. Meanwhile, you advocate torture for someone merely accused of a crime.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It all depends on what you mean by all the costs. If you mean all the cleanup costs and compensation for those directly affected then yes, but if you mean paying shitloads for lawsuits brought by bottom feeding legal weasels whose only interest is sucking the lifeblood out of BP then I hope not.

Well I certainly meant the former. I'm sure BP will pay some but if past history is any indicator the American Public will take it up the ass.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

BP owns many of the stations. Its partners did not go into business with BP by sheer coincidence. What kind of nonsense is that.

Well, it's the nonsense of how gasoline has been sold in America for almost a century, I think. People buy or rent a building, pay the utilities, buy the business license, etc., and they contract with various oil companies to sell their product. In some cases, they will pay a franchise fee, but the business they operate is wholly independent of the actual company who's name is on the sign outside. BP gas stations are NOT owned by BP! They are independently owned by people who happen to have picked BP out of several companies they could have chosen, to provide the gasoline they sell. I'm not sure about the profit margins now, but it used to be about .03 a gallon for the station owner, the rest goes to the oil company. Most gas stations don't profit very much from gas sales, they make their money from all the other things they provide... sodas, chips, smokes, boiled peanuts, wiper blades, etc.

Of course, there should be a court trial over disputed claims. BP will be held to strict liability in the cases arising under federal law. There is no need to prove negligence.

First of all, there is a $75 million cap on liability for BP, IF they want to press the issue! They have already announced, they do not intent to use this loophole to get out of paying what they are legitimately responsible for. But before ANY court case can be won against them, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, that BP is responsible for their claimed damages. I don't know what planet you're living on, where people can be successfully sued without proof they are responsible for the liability.

For the state level cases there may be a burden on the plaintiffs to prove negligence, but it seems pretty clear that that will not be difficult to prove. I think they should be held to held to strict liability in the property damage cases. It was not an "act of God," and therefore BP is responsible for damages.

Well again, no... that isn't how 'easy' it is! They are still investigating the cause of the explosion... what if they determine it was sabotage by a terrorist? Is it STILL the fault of BP? Is BP STILL RESPONSIBLE? Setting that one aside, there are a number of subcontractors involved here, and it might be determined the failure of the system was THEIR liability, not that of BP! Or they may find it was a COMBINATION of errors on the part of BP and their subcontractors, as well as the federal agency charged with oversight. There is still a LOT left to be determined, and it is far too early to be banging your gavel on BP in this.

There is NO doubt that BP is responsible here, whether they were negligent or not. But, if BP disputes a claim then, certainly, they should get a court case. Meanwhile, you advocate torture for someone merely accused of a crime.

No, there is a knee-jerk emotive liberal pinhead perception that BP is 'no doubt' responsible, that's all! The actual incident is still being investigated, and we are months away from answers on who was at fault. I'm not saying BP isn't totally 100% responsible for this, but I think the fact that Obama was about to award them a prestigious safety award, is reason to take pause, step back, and truly evaluate and assess the situation. I have maintained all along, these oil rigs just don't blow up and sink! They sit out there through hurricanes, have ships run into them, and everything else, and this kind of thing just doesn't happen. I want to wait for a complete and thorough investigation into what went wrong, how it happened, and who was ultimately to blame for that. My gut feeling is, it won't be 100% the fault (and subsequent liability) of British Petroleum.

 

[Timshel]

Well, it's the nonsense of how gasoline has been sold in America for almost a century, I think. People buy or rent a building, pay the utilities, buy the business license, etc., and they contract with various oil companies to sell their product. In some cases, they will pay a franchise fee, but the business they operate is wholly independent of the actual company who's name is on the sign outside. BP gas stations are NOT owned by BP! They are independently owned by people who happen to have picked BP out of several companies they could have chosen, to provide the gasoline they sell. I'm not sure about the profit margins now, but it used to be about .03 a gallon for the station owner, the rest goes to the oil company. Most gas stations don't profit very much from gas sales, they make their money from all the other things they provide... sodas, chips, smokes, boiled peanuts, wiper blades, etc.

The nonsense part come in your ridiculous statement that this all happens by sheer coincidence.

First of all, there is a $75 million cap on liability for BP, IF they want to press the issue! They have already announced, they do not intent to use this loophole to get out of paying what they are legitimately responsible for. But before ANY court case can be won against them, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, that BP is responsible for their claimed damages. I don't know what planet you're living on, where people can be successfully sued without proof they are responsible for the liability.

The cap is for cleanup costs, not for damages and it does not apply to suits brought in state courts. Federal law holds them to strict liability which means proof of negligence is not needed. The proof needed is "was there damage" and "was it BP operations that caused the damage." Do you think that is going to be hard prove?

Well again, no... that isn't how 'easy' it is! They are still investigating the cause of the explosion... what if they determine it was sabotage by a terrorist? Is it STILL the fault of BP? Is BP STILL RESPONSIBLE? Setting that one aside, there are a number of subcontractors involved here, and it might be determined the failure of the system was THEIR liability, not that of BP! Or they may find it was a COMBINATION of errors on the part of BP and their subcontractors, as well as the federal agency charged with oversight. There is still a LOT left to be determined, and it is far too early to be banging your gavel on BP in this.

Nope. Not under federal law. Your imaginary bullshit will not fly in court.

No, there is a knee-jerk emotive liberal pinhead perception that BP is 'no doubt' responsible, that's all! The actual incident is still being investigated, and we are months away from answers on who was at fault. I'm not saying BP isn't totally 100% responsible for this, but I think the fact that Obama was about to award them a prestigious safety award, is reason to take pause, step back, and truly evaluate and assess the situation. I have maintained all along, these oil rigs just don't blow up and sink! They sit out there through hurricanes, have ships run into them, and everything else, and this kind of thing just doesn't happen. I want to wait for a complete and thorough investigation into what went wrong, how it happened, and who was ultimately to blame for that. My gut feeling is, it won't be 100% the fault (and subsequent liability) of British Petroleum.

Unless BP can prove some sort of willful and criminal act by someone else they will liable under federal law.

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The nonsense part come in your ridiculous statement that this all happens by sheer coincidence.

Well, it's not ridiculous at all, an independent gas station owner just happened (by coincidence) to select BP as their gasoline supplier! They could have picked Shell, Mobil, Exxon, Texaco... they coincidentally chose BP... not knowing that one day a BP oil rig would explode and sink, and liberal mush-brains would boycott their stations! These people had absolutely NOTHING to do with this catastrophe, but they are who you think we should punish with a boycott!

The cap is for cleanup costs, not for damages and it does not apply to suits brought in state courts. Federal law holds them to strict liability which means proof of negligence is not needed. The proof needed is "was there damage" and "was it BP operations that caused the damage." Do you think that is going to be hard prove?

In order to get damages, you HAVE TO show liability for the damages! I don't know what the end results of the investigation will be, and neither do you. What you are reacting to, is emotion... sheer unadulterated emotion! Nothing more! You don't know what happened, you don't know who was ultimately liable, the rig was owned by BP, but that doesn't automatically mean they were responsible for the accident... only in Stringy's Court of Opinion is that the case.

Nope. Not under federal law. Your imaginary bullshit will not fly in court.

Yes sir, liability for damages has to be determined and proven in state court, federal court, kangaroo court... everywhere except Stringy's Court of Opinion! There is not an exception, this is how our judicial system works.

Unless BP can prove some sort of willful and criminal act by someone else they will liable under federal law.

BP is the DEFENDANT... the defendant is not charged with burden of proof, that is the PLAINTIFF who has to do that in court.

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

I am well aware of how litigation happens in US courts. I am not an expert, but neither are you, and judging by your response, you're not even someone who has a fucking clue.

 

[Timshel]

Well, it's not ridiculous at all, an independent gas station owner just happened (by coincidence) to select BP as their gasoline supplier! They could have picked Shell, Mobil, Exxon, Texaco... they coincidentally chose BP... not knowing that one day a BP oil rig would explode and sink, and liberal mush-brains would boycott their stations! These people had absolutely NOTHING to do with this catastrophe, but they are who you think we should punish with a boycott!

You are an idiot. I seriously doubt most station owners put a bunch of oil company names into a hat, picked one out and signed a deal with them. That's retarded and even if they did do it that way, it was their choice. It is not coincidence that made them choose BP.

It's unfortunate that they may suffer from doing business with BP. But this is true of anybody that does business with a failed partner.

In order to get damages, you HAVE TO show liability for the damages! I don't know what the end results of the investigation will be, and neither do you. What you are reacting to, is emotion... sheer unadulterated emotion! Nothing more! You don't know what happened, you don't know who was ultimately liable, the rig was owned by BP, but that doesn't automatically mean they were responsible for the accident... only in Stringy's Court of Opinion is that the case.

You have that backwards. In order for a plaintiff to establish liability in the defendant they have to prove they were damaged.

Again, under federal law BP is held to strict liability, which means it is not necessary to prove negligence.

I am sure this will not help you, but...

http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/strict_liabilty.htm

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any "fault" on their part.

the link has more on it...

Yes sir, liability for damages has to be determined and proven in state court, federal court, kangaroo court... everywhere except Stringy's Court of Opinion! There is not an exception, this is how our judicial system works.

Jesus Christ. Yes liability has to be proven, dumbfuck. Apparently you don't know what liability means. It does not mean negligent. It means, legally responsible.

BP is the DEFENDANT... the defendant is not charged with burden of proof, that is the PLAINTIFF who has to do that in court.

Actually,with strict liability, I am not sure it would help even if they were able to prove someone caused the spill through a criminal act.

With strict liability there is no burden on the defendant to prove negligence.

I am well aware of how litigation happens in US courts. I am not an expert, but neither are you, and judging by your response, you're not even someone who has a fucking clue.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are a blowhard that routinely speaks out of his ass.

 

[Taichiliberal]

True, boycotting BP would be detrimental to the hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans whose livelihood....so instead of BP blowing millions on PR to BS people into thinking it's not all that bad, why didn't they spend all that cash on relief funds to the hundreds of fishermen and related businesses that are royally screwed by BP's foul-up?

As a nation, we've already experienced the "too big to fail" syndrome to let it be repeated or used as a barganing chip here.

 

[Damocles]

True, boycotting BP would be detrimental to the hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans whose livelihood....so instead of BP blowing millions on PR to BS people into thinking it's not all that bad, why didn't they spend all that cash on relief funds to the hundreds of fishermen and related businesses that are royally screwed by BP's foul-up?

As a nation, we've already experienced the "too big to fail" syndrome to let it be repeated or used as a barganing chip here.

Here is a link that gives details about their response.

http://www.bp.com/managedlistingsection.do?categoryId=9033573&contentId=7062258

Here's one that includes a link on how to get just that kind of money from BP...

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033654&contentId=7061960

They established an 800 number for the claims...

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033654&contentId=7061984

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are an idiot. I seriously doubt most station owners put a bunch of oil company names into a hat, picked one out and signed a deal with them. That's retarded and even if they did do it that way, it was their choice. It is not coincidence that made them choose BP.

I didn't say they put the names in a hat, I am sure they had various reasons for selecting BP to contract with for their gasoline, the point was, the gas stations are not owned by BP, and boycotting BP will only hurt the gas station owner, just because he happened to pick BP. The gas station owner didn't cause this spill, and isn't responsible for cleaning up the mess, he just has a contract to buy BP gas, and because of that, he is going to be boycotted. What about that is FAIR????

It's unfortunate that they may suffer from doing business with BP. But this is true of anybody that does business with a failed partner.

BP is not a "failed partner" by any stretch. They are who the gas station owner chose to contract with for gasoline supply. It's not "unfortunate" they are going to be boycotted, it is "uncalled for!"

You have that backwards. In order for a plaintiff to establish liability in the defendant they have to prove they were damaged.

I don't have ANYTHING backwards, IDIOT! Your words: Unless BP can prove some sort of willful and criminal act by someone else they will liable. Now you are saying the plaintiff proving damages establishes liability, and that is equally as ignorant. The plaintiff has to first establish that BP is the liable party, if they can't do that, they have no case for damages! You do understand what the fucking meaning of "liability" is, don't you?

Again, under federal law BP is held to strict liability, which means it is not necessary to prove negligence.

No one has mentioned "negligence" except YOU! Under Federal Law, BP is limited to liability in the amount of $75 million. Any additional liability would have to include negligence, that is the only exception to the liability cap in this case. BP has voluntarily agreed to not limit their liability for legitimate claims. But you know what? Maybe if smart ass armchair lawyers like yourself, keep running your smart assed mouth, they might just say, fuck it--sue us!

I am sure this will not help you, but...

http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/strict_liabilty.htm

I think that is something YOU need to read!

Jesus Christ. Yes liability has to be proven, dumbfuck. Apparently you don't know what liability means. It does not mean negligent. It means, legally responsible.

Liable MEANS responsible, dimwit. I know exactly what it means, and I also know what "negligent" means, and I have not used that word a single time here, YOU are the fool who keeps typing it! No one is saying they have to be proven negligent! If someone on the BP rig was drunk and accidentally opened the valve and released the oil, THAT would be negligence.. acting without reasonable regard. Liability doesn't have to be negligent, and BP can indeed be found liable without being found negligent, but before you can bring charges for damages against ANYFUCKINGBODY, you MUST prove they are LIABLE! If you didn't have this burden, YOU AND I could be sued for damages! MORON!

Actually,with strict liability, I am not sure it would help even if they were able to prove someone caused the spill through a criminal act.

With strict liability there is no burden on the defendant to prove negligence.

There is no such thing as "strict liability" which is different than regular liability. LIABLE has a defined and clear meaning, and you are the only mutherfucker here who doesn't seem to comprehend it. If the spill was caused by an act of terror, it is OBAMA and Janet Napolitano, who are LIABLE and probably NEGLIGENT!

And I don't know if you're just drunk or high and posted the wrong thing, but a "defendant" doesn't have to "prove" any goddamn thing, they are not required to "prove" things in court, that is the charge for the PLAINTIFF!

You don't know what you are talking about. You are a blowhard that routinely speaks out of his ass.

Is there some point in continuing to post your insults? I think it's a good indicator you realize Dixie handed you that ass on a platter, and you have nothing else.... you're done! So now you'll throw out some strawmen, you'll repeat the same idiocy, and you'll keep posting one insult after the other and hope people don't realize how thoroughly trounced you got in this debate. I don't really blame you, it's embarrassing as hell to get bested by a good old southern boy, and I am sure that is eating you up inside, but you'll get over it eventually.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
True, boycotting BP would be detrimental to the hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans whose livelihood....so instead of BP blowing millions on PR to BS people into thinking it's not all that bad, why didn't they spend all that cash on relief funds to the hundreds of fishermen and related businesses that are royally screwed by BP's foul-up?

As a nation, we've already experienced the "too big to fail" syndrome to let it be repeated or used as a barganing chip here.

Here is a link that gives details about their response.

http://www.bp.com/managedlistingsection.do?categoryId=9033573&contentId=7062258

Here's one that includes a link on how to get just that kind of money from BP...

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9033654&contentId=7061960

They established an 800 number for the claims...

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9033654&contentId=7061984

BP takes responsibility for responding to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We will clean it up. BP has established a robust process to manage claims resulting from the Deepwater Horizon incident.

BP will pay all necessary and appropriate clean-up costs.

BP is committed to pay legitimate and objectively verifiable claims for other loss and damage caused by the spill - this may include claims for assessment, mitigation and clean up of spilled oil, real and property damage caused by the oil, personal injury caused by the spill, commercial losses including loss of earnings/profit and other losses as contemplated by applicable laws and regulations.
Claims Line for Deepwater Horizon Incident Claims
BP has established a Claims Line for oil spill-related claims. The toll-free number for the Claims Line is +1-800-440-0858. The line is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Personnel at the Claims Line will provide each caller with information on how to submit a claim.
Each claim will be assigned to an adjuster and the claim will be promptly investigated and evaluated.
Larger and more complex claims may require additional investigation and documentation prior to evaluation and resolution.
BP will pay resolved claims promptly.
This page was last updated 2 May 2010

That's nice lip service....but all one has to do is look at what went down with the Exxon-Valdez to get an idea of how oil companies make sure all the legal ducks are in a row (aka---minimum payout) before they cut a check...20 years later and the locals got a cheap payoff.....that's a LOT of billable hours, my friend.

My point STILL stands....we're looking at MILLIONS blown on commercials to soft soap this disaster as opposed to just funneling that money to the forementioned. Given BP's dishonesty on this situation so far and coupled with their massive quarter profits prior to this disaster, I'll reserve compliments until results are in from their actions.

 

[Timshel]

I didn't say they put the names in a hat, I am sure they had various reasons for selecting BP to contract with for their gasoline, the point was, the gas stations are not owned by BP, and boycotting BP will only hurt the gas station owner, just because he happened to pick BP. The gas station owner didn't cause this spill, and isn't responsible for cleaning up the mess, he just has a contract to buy BP gas, and because of that, he is going to be boycotted. What about that is FAIR????

You said it was sheer coincidence. That is to what I objected. Many of them are owned by BP. They will suffer for picking a bad partner. Lot's of companies go through that.

BP is not a "failed partner" by any stretch. They are who the gas station owner chose to contract with for gasoline supply. It's not "unfortunate" they are going to be boycotted, it is "uncalled for!"

It's more than buying gas from them. They use their brand, advertisement and many other resources. That's like saying the local McDonald's just buys burgers from McDonald's.

I don't have ANYTHING backwards, IDIOT! Your words: Unless BP can prove some sort of willful and criminal act by someone else they will liable. Now you are saying the plaintiff proving damages establishes liability, and that is equally as ignorant. The plaintiff has to first establish that BP is the liable party, if they can't do that, they have no case for damages! You do understand what the fucking meaning of "liability" is, don't you?

Like I said, after looking further I am not sure that will help them.

No, dumbfuck, proving that you were damaged is PART of establishing liability. You are confusing the award with the need to prove damage. With the strict liability that applies here, it is the bulk of the case. The only other thing that needs to be proven is that BP controlled the well.

No one has mentioned "negligence" except YOU! Under Federal Law, BP is limited to liability in the amount of $75 million. Any additional liability would have to include negligence, that is the only exception to the liability cap in this case.

Yeah, you mentioned negligence. Here it is...

the rig was owned by BP, but that doesn't automatically mean they were responsible for the accident.

Under strict liability, yes it does. And you are wrong on the other points as well. The cap does not apply to cleanup costs, but only economic damages (I goofed on that and switched them). But, if they can prove that federal law or regulations were violated they won't apply there either. Also, the cap doesn't apply to claims brought under state courts.

There are many other federal laws under which BP will be held to strict liability.

BP has voluntarily agreed to not limit their liability for legitimate claims. But you know what? Maybe if smart ass armchair lawyers like yourself, keep running your smart assed mouth, they might just say, fuck it--sue us!

And they will lose. There is no fucking way they will win under the federal claims. They are already being sued in state courts where the cap will not apply.

I think that is something YOU need to read!

Liable MEANS responsible, dimwit. I know exactly what it means, and I also know what "negligent" means, and I have not used that word a single time here, YOU are the fool who keeps typing it! No one is saying they have to be proven negligent! If someone on the BP rig was drunk and accidentally opened the valve and released the oil, THAT would be negligence.. acting without reasonable regard. Liability doesn't have to be negligent, and BP can indeed be found liable without being found negligent, but before you can bring charges for damages against ANYFUCKINGBODY, you MUST prove they are LIABLE! If you didn't have this burden, YOU AND I could be sued for damages! MORON!

You are a fucking liar and just trying to backpedal now. Post #13..

I also would like to know, when was a thorough investigation completed on this? Has it been determined without any doubt, this was due to BP negligence?

You reiterated the need to prove negligence (fault), though, you may not have used that exact word, many times.

Your drunk scenario would be gross negligence.

And under strict liability you are liable if your actions or products have caused damage to others. That's it. No need to prove you were careless or acted with disregard.

There is no such thing as "strict liability" which is different than regular liability. LIABLE has a defined and clear meaning, and you are the only mutherfucker here who doesn't seem to comprehend it. If the spill was caused by an act of terror, it is OBAMA and Janet Napolitano, who are LIABLE and probably NEGLIGENT!

Yes there is, dumbfuck. Strict liability has a different standard. Under normal liability one must prove negligence.

I, honestly, don't see why they should not be held to strict liability under state claims since this is clearly an inherently risky activity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You said it was sheer coincidence. That is to what I objected. Many of them are owned by BP. They will suffer for picking a bad partner. Lot's of companies go through that.

You stupid fucknut, they didn't "pick a bad partner!" They made the choice to contract with BP for their gasoline, they had no idea that BP would encounter an oil spill, or that liberal pinheads would initiate a boycott of BP because of it! Had they known, they probably would have gone with Shell! But then, this same thing could have happened to Shell, so maybe they should have not gone into the gas business? Maybe everyone should get out of the fucking gas business? You are a pathetic piece of shit with this stupidity! It's unfair to punish the small businessman, who had absolutely nothing to do with this, and is a victim of circumstance. You can blow shit out your piehole all you like, you sound like a fucking moron.

It's more than buying gas from them. They use their brand, advertisement and many other resources. That's like saying the local McDonald's just buys burgers from McDonald's.

McDonald's is a different deal, you buy a McDonald's franchise. A mom and pop burger joint doesn't contract with McDonald's to sell their hamburgers!

Like I said, after looking further I am not sure that will help them.

Because you are a retarded fuckwit who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

No, dumbfuck, proving that you were damaged is PART of establishing liability. You are confusing the award with the need to prove damage. With the strict liability that applies here, it is the bulk of the case. The only other thing that needs to be proven is that BP controlled the well.

No, I am sorry, proving you were damaged is NOT part of proving liability, lots of people are damaged by lots of things, they have to first prove who is liable for their damage. There is no special "kind" of liability here, BP is either liable or they're not. Just because it was their oil rig, doesn't automatically make them liable. An investigation is still ongoing, and when it is complete, we will have more answers as to who is the liable party, and who people can sue for damages. Until then, blow some more shit out of your mouth, it's a neat trick!

 

[Timshel]

Again, it is not sheer coincidence that they went into business with BP. It's unfortunate that it comes back to bite them and you are right it's not really their fault. But businesses are damaged all the time from the failures of a partner, vendor or customer.

If it is just a simple deal to buy gas then they can change suppliers. Who gives a shit.

Yes, you have to prove that you were damaged in order to establish liability. That's the reason for the neck braces. You keep putting the cart before the horse demanding that they prove liability, but in order to prove the liability of another you have to establish that you were damaged by their actions or failure to act (not necessarily negligent action).

There is a special form of liability here, strict liability. I already gave you a reference showing that it is different, from normal liability.

You are confusing liable with negligence or fault. It is not always necessary that one be negligent in order to be liable. For instance, a parent is liable for support of their child, period. There is no fault or negligence necessarily involved in that. You can even be the victim of a crime and still be held liable in this case. That is, if you are underage and the victim of statutory rape, you are still liable for child support.