Pipeline units ask for suit's dismissal

Pipeline units ask for suit's dismissal

There are 4 comments on the Arkansas Online story from Aug 25, 2013, titled Pipeline units ask for suit's dismissal. In it, Arkansas Online reports that:

Two Exxon Mobil Corp. subsidiaries filed a motion late Friday seeking to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed by the Arkansas attorney general and the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas over the March 29 pipeline rupture that spilled thousands of gallons of crude oil into a Mayflower subdivision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Arkansas Online.

guest

United States

#1 Aug 25, 2013
What's the point of posting this article on Topix if we can't read it without a subscription?
guest

United States

#2 Aug 25, 2013
The pipeline was completed in 1948. Then, 60 years later, some nimrod decided to build a subdivision right on top it.

Should the damage to the houses caused by the pipe rupture be the responsibility of the oil company, or that of the land developer who didn't disclose that the subdivision was built right on top of the pipeline?

Exxon should be dismissed from the lawsuit and the developer should have to pay for the damages to the homes, and then be put in prison for 15 years. What he did was criminal.
guest

Lula, GA

#3 Aug 26, 2013
guest wrote:
The pipeline was completed in 1948. Then, 60 years later, some nimrod decided to build a subdivision right on top it.

Should the damage to the houses caused by the pipe rupture be the responsibility of the oil company, or that of the land developer who didn't disclose that the subdivision was built right on top of the pipeline?

Exxon should be dismissed from the lawsuit and the developer should have to pay for the damages to the homes, and then be put in prison for 15 years. What he did was criminal.
I disagree. What's the point of putting these pipelines in the ground if they were not made with the intention of building on top of them? If you build something that is meant to contain hazardous chemicals and you bury it under ground so that the land above it can still be utilized then you should be held accountable if your product fails and those chemicals do damage. These pipelines would not be possible if you could not build anything above them. Just think of all the roads, highways, and interstates that cross these pipelines.
guest

United States

#4 Aug 26, 2013
guest wrote:
I disagree. What's the point of putting these pipelines in the ground if they were not made with the intention of building on top of them? If you build something that is meant to contain hazardous chemicals and you bury it under ground so that the land above it can still be utilized then you should be held accountable if your product fails and those chemicals do damage. These pipelines would not be possible if you could not build anything above them. Just think of all the roads, highways, and interstates that cross these pipelines.
There was no intention to build on top of the pipeline. It was put in the ground for a number of reasons, none of which had anything to do with building a residential neighborhood on top of it.

Some sleezy developer bought the land for a song because of the pipeline below, then built nice houses on top of it making huge amounts of profit and never once disclosed the fact that there was a major pipeline running right under the neighborhood. Would you pay top dollar for a house knowing that there was a huge pipeline right underneath it? Of course not. What the developer did is criminal in my book.

One can hardly blame the oil company for the damage. When the pipeline was built there were no houses that were endangered. It's not their fault someone put themselves at risk by building right on top of it.

If you park a mobile home on a highway and it gets smashed by an 18 wheeler, do you really think the state highway department should be responsible for the damages? Of course not.

The only reason the oil company was sued is because it has deep pockets. The real culprit is the developer who failed to disclose the existence of the pipeline when he sold all those houses.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arkansas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 min dollarsbill 12,889
News Why Evangelicals Should Be Terrified Of Trump, ... Sep 1 swedenforever 2
Poll Did you vote today? (Jun '10) Sep 1 Ho Dee Doo 30,949
News Trump's lead grows as Bush slips in Republican ... Sep 1 wild child 17
News 2016ers weigh in on Trump's 'blood' comment Aug 30 Le Jimbo 443
News Names of 2 legislators, ex-justice on users list Aug 28 Srilaura 3
What Happened to Morgan Nick of Alma, Arkansas? (Jun '07) Aug 24 Carla Jones 51
More from around the web