Reaction paper
Main thesis and arguments of the authors include the common law nuisance. The author presents the case Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company from a year 1970. Author is describing a case where public expressed concern about the Atlantic Cement Company of producing air pollution, vibrations and heavy dusts before the court. The government has the necessary financial power, but technical procedures regarding the matter are not yet fully developed. The author presents that the air pollution investigation is involving the economic impact as well as the impacts on the public health. In the case of air pollution solely the court cannot be the judge with the limited nature and equipment to introduce the effective policy to mitigate the issue. The author is presenting a case that can be used nationwide in all similar cases in the country where the cement is being produced and is making dust and polluting the air. The precedence of ruling about the air pollution differs whether the company making wrong is working and has been primarily established for the public benefit or for private benefit and advantages.
I found it interesting that economy prevailed over the environmental and health protection. The author has presented a case where the dilemma of the regulation of the protection from the air pollution is seen. The court did decide not only on the fact whether the company is guiltily of pollution, but has taken also the economic importance into an account. It has been shown that even though under the law that is specific for the companies that are of public interests also private companies can be included. An injunction was ruled for the company had a central role in the local economy. It has provided the working space for many of the citizens and the closing would result in economic as well in the governmental and school negative consequences since the company was paying a vast amount of taxes. I found the writing interesting since the common law has been shown in one case that really raises a dilemma and questions how to act. I liked the author’s comments and questioning on the ruling with which it looks like that in exchange for money companies can continue to act in a way that has been found wrong. The author has questioned the permitting the injunction to be inoperative until the payment with which the court is allowing a continuation of work that is wrong. I believe the author has used a case where the positive and negative sides of the air protection law can be seen.
I have learned that there are weakness and strengths of the common law in the area of regulating the air pollution. The strengths can be found in closing down the companies which have no public benefit and are polluting the air or environment on one side and on the other the courts can impose a penalty to pay or give a deadline in which the company must provide sufficient environmental protection. The weakness can be expressed by the limiting power if the company is public. It raises a lot of questions of equality, why should one company be allowed to break the rules where others must oblige by all laws. I have also learned that in ruling about the environmental and air pollution a lot of other factors play an important role beyond the topic of pollution. Various factors that contribute to the prosperity and benefit the society are argued and taken into an account. The negative side can be seen also that money compensation and settlement can result in no change of the pollution levels.
Questions:
What were the rulings of courts in the majority of similar cases after this ruling?
Has anything changed in order to overcome the weakness of common law in regard of the air pollution?
What happened next? Did the company provide sufficient compensation to the population or did it changed their way of operating?
Can one therefore assume that the economic benefits prevail over the protection of the environment and over the protection of air quality?
Work cited:
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).
