首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Environmental Law: Injection Wells; Induced Seismicity Administrative Law: Public Law/Private Law Distinction
【24h】

Environmental Law: Injection Wells; Induced Seismicity Administrative Law: Public Law/Private Law Distinction

机译:环境法:注入井;诱导地震行政法:公法/私法的区别

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The plaintiff alleges that she suffered personal injuries and injury to property when a 5.0 magnitude earthquake occurred near her residence. She sued the defendants, who operated wastewater injection wells, alleging that the disposal wells were the proximate cause of her injuries. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that an adjudication of the lawsuit would require the court to decide issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). The District Court found, among other wings, that (a) the OCC authorized the defendants to conduct the disposal operations that the plaintiff claims caused her damages, (b) there are no allegations that the defendants violated the terms of the licenses as granted to them by the OCC, and (c) the OCC is vested with exclusive jurisdiction, power and authority with reference to the exploration, drilling, development, production and operation of wells used in connection with the recovery, injection or disposal of mineral brines. 17 O.S. § 52(a)(1)(d). Ladra appealed. Held: reversed and remanded. The Oklahoma Supreme Court accepted the case for immediate review. The court found that Ladra had pled a private cause of action alleging that the defendants engaged in "ultrahazardous activities" that necessarily involve a risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of utmost care. The court ruled that whether defendants are negligent or absolutely liable is a matter to be determined by a District Court and that the OCC does not have the authority to resolve these issues. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the District Court's dismissal of the case and remanded the matter to the District Court for further proceedings.
机译:原告指称,她的住所附近发生5.0级地震时,她遭受了人身伤害和财产损失。她起诉了经营废水注入井的被告,指控这些处理井是造成她受伤的直接原因。地区法院批准了被告的动议,认为驳回该诉讼将要求法院裁定俄克拉荷马州公司委员会(OCC)专属管辖范围内的问题。地方法院在其他方面发现,(a)OCC授权被告进行原告所称对其造成损害的处置工作,(b)没有指控被告违反授予被告人的许可条款的指控。它们由OCC负责,并且(c)OCC拥有与开采,注入或处置矿物质盐水有关的井的勘探,钻探,开发,生产和运营的专属管辖权,权力和权限。下午17点第52(a)(1)(d)条。拉德拉上诉。举行:撤回并还押。俄克拉荷马州最高法院接受了此案,以立即进行审查。法院认为,拉德拉(Ladra)曾提出私人诉因,指称被告从事“超危险活动”,这些危险活动必然会带来严重伤害的风险,而如果采取最大的谨慎措施则无法消除。法院裁定,被告是否疏忽大意或负有绝对责任,由地区法院裁定,OCC无权解决这些问题。俄克拉荷马州最高法院推翻了地方法院对本案的驳回,并将此案发回地方法院进一步审理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号