Buffolo Creek Disaster

Lin Lin

A49059641

5/6/2016

Incorporate Business Law with

The Buffalo Creek Disaster

On February 26, 1972, the worst man made disaster was happened in West Virginia of the United State. The disaster called the Buffalo Creek Disaster. The community in West Virginia faced a coal-mining disaster, which was caused by the Pittston Coal Company’s dam #3 that burst. The disaster caused 125 dead and thousand of people became homeless. However, the people who were victims in this disaster were able to work together and against the company that made them lost their properties and family members. In the book, I feel the power of solidarity, people did not knuckle under to the company’s small compensate, instead they were trying their best to sue the company, and made the company acknowledge their responsibilities in the disaster. In this essay I am going to incorporate what I learned in this class about personal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship and punitive damage on this disaster.

Firstly, I am going to talk about personal jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. Who was responsible for this disaster? Who was the right one the victims filed claim against was one of the most important legal issues in this case. The author in the book stated that he wanted to bring the suit against Pittston Company, the reason for that is that it could help him to bring the lawsuit to the federal court.  If the author filed a complaint against the Buffalo Mining Company in the state court in Logan County, the author was afraid there would be some tricks pulled on him. So he brought the case into federal court will made him felt like home. I am going to talk more deeply about why the author want to brought the lawsuit to Pittston Company according to personal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.

The collapsed dam was belonging to the Buffalo Mining Company, which was located in West Virginia, and Pittston Company was the sole stockholder for the Buffalo Mining Company. After the disaster, the Pittston Company that was located in New York City trying to proclaim that the collapsed dam was an Act of God.  The reason why they proclaimed this statement is that they did not want to take on the responsibility of this disaster. However, this was a bad public relations blunder for those West Virginians survivor who was God-loving and God-fearing. Pittston Company did not release the first written press; it was released by it subsidiary in West Virginia that was the Buffalo Mining Company. They want to use this method to let the Buffalo Mining Company responsible for any possible lawsuit it would be filed. However, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Pittston Company, because Pittston Company had certain minimum contacts with West Virginia where the court is located.

What we learned in class about the personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the person. However, a court exercises the power over a nonresident defendant only as there exist minimum contacts between the defendant and the forums state. The minimum contacts test is intended to protect defendants from unfairly being hauled into court unexpectedly. It is centered on traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, meaning that there has to some reasonableness and fairness in the exercise of personal jurisdiction. However, when a corporation purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting business activities within the forum state, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there. In this case, the Buffalo Mining Company is a subsidiary company of Pittston, and the subsidiary company is located in West Virginia. So Pittston purposefully avails itself of the privileges and benefit of doing business in West Virginia, therefore the company should have being anticipated haul into the court in West Virginia. So there was existed personal jurisdiction for Pittston Company that located in the State of New York, because it is where the company located.

...