Disasters happen. Whether they are natural, man-made, or human error, disasters are an unfortunate part of existence in a modern world. Malcolm Gladwell may have said it best: “[w]hat accidents like the Challenger should teach us is that we have constructed a world in which the potential for high-tech catastrophe is embedded in the fabric of day-to-day life.” ¹ And quickly following any disaster are the inevitable lawsuits raising claims relating to the rapid response efforts undertaken by the public and private sector during and immediately following a catastrophic event. Disaster response is necessarily done under emergency conditions, often with altruistic motives. Under these circumstances, steps are often taken without time for a full assessment of risks or potential liabilities associated with the actions being taken.

However, when emergency conditions abate and the spirit of heroism fades, second-guessing may begin regarding both the cause of the disaster (if not natural) and the safety of response efforts. And then, the lawsuits commence. The plaintiffs in these cases often include disaster victims, first responders, local residents, and local businesses, and the questions being asked are: “who was supposed to prevent this and didn’t?” and “why wasn’t the response to this disaster done better/faster/safer?” This pattern is one we have seen in litigations following the events of 9/11, Deepwater Horizon, Superstorm Sandy, and others.

There are issues and approaches a corporate counsel should consider once the company becomes involved in a disaster, even before litigation ensues, because sometimes even common sense tasks can be overlooked in the tumult of responding to a catastrophe.

Read original article


Tags: Disaster response, disaster victims, Malcolm Gladwell, rapid response efforts, response efforts