PG & E Hinkley Groundwater Contamination: Case Study
PROJECT REPORT OF BUSINESS ETHICS
PG&E Hinkley Groundwater Contamination
Contents
INTRODUCTION
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, commonly known as PG&E, is the investor-owned utility that provides natural gas and electricity to most of the northern two-thirds of California, from Bakersfield almost to the Oregon border. It is the leading subsidiary of the PG&E Corporation.
PG&E began delivering natural gas to San Francisco and northern California in 1930 through the longest pipeline in the world, connecting the Texas gas fields to northern California with compressor stations that included cooling towers every 300 miles (480 km), at Topock, Arizona, on the state line, and near the town of Hinkley, …show more content…
He told Hinkley residents that he believed that PG&E had poisoned them with Cr 6, and that this was the cause of their varied ailments. By 1993 Brockovich and Masry had 47 clients. The terms of the contracts with the law firm gave the firm 40 per cent of any reward, and Masry filed the suit. The case went before the county court, and the first big hurdle was passed: the judge ruled that PG&E should have known about the contamination of the groundwater, and that the case could go forward to a jury. When 77 initial plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against PG&E in 1993, it was the direct result of a monstrous effort by this dedicated legal team. People who drank polluted water, and breathed contaminated air, wanted answers. As Walter Lack, whose firm took over lead responsibilities for the litigation, told the trial judge on January 4, …show more content…
On the other hand, if it knew - or should have known - the result would be different. Since it is the jury 's job to determine facts - and the above issues are fact issues - the jury would decide whether plaintiffs could recover for such injury claims. Not a great prospect for PG&E.
By July and August of 1994, with the preconception win in their pockets, plaintiffs literally bombarded PG&E with six inches of motions to compel production of documents and more detailed answers to interrogatories. Their lawyers knew what they were doing; they had done the investigative background work; they were prepared; they knew their case. What they needed from PG&E were the details: The facts and figures of how much chrome 6 was used; how and when it was discharged; when the wells were first tested; how much concealment from the citizens of Hinkley was really going
PG&E Hinkley Groundwater Contamination
Contents
INTRODUCTION
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, commonly known as PG&E, is the investor-owned utility that provides natural gas and electricity to most of the northern two-thirds of California, from Bakersfield almost to the Oregon border. It is the leading subsidiary of the PG&E Corporation.
PG&E began delivering natural gas to San Francisco and northern California in 1930 through the longest pipeline in the world, connecting the Texas gas fields to northern California with compressor stations that included cooling towers every 300 miles (480 km), at Topock, Arizona, on the state line, and near the town of Hinkley, …show more content…
He told Hinkley residents that he believed that PG&E had poisoned them with Cr 6, and that this was the cause of their varied ailments. By 1993 Brockovich and Masry had 47 clients. The terms of the contracts with the law firm gave the firm 40 per cent of any reward, and Masry filed the suit. The case went before the county court, and the first big hurdle was passed: the judge ruled that PG&E should have known about the contamination of the groundwater, and that the case could go forward to a jury. When 77 initial plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against PG&E in 1993, it was the direct result of a monstrous effort by this dedicated legal team. People who drank polluted water, and breathed contaminated air, wanted answers. As Walter Lack, whose firm took over lead responsibilities for the litigation, told the trial judge on January 4, …show more content…
On the other hand, if it knew - or should have known - the result would be different. Since it is the jury 's job to determine facts - and the above issues are fact issues - the jury would decide whether plaintiffs could recover for such injury claims. Not a great prospect for PG&E.
By July and August of 1994, with the preconception win in their pockets, plaintiffs literally bombarded PG&E with six inches of motions to compel production of documents and more detailed answers to interrogatories. Their lawyers knew what they were doing; they had done the investigative background work; they were prepared; they knew their case. What they needed from PG&E were the details: The facts and figures of how much chrome 6 was used; how and when it was discharged; when the wells were first tested; how much concealment from the citizens of Hinkley was really going