Question

In 1962 the Atlantic Cement Company began operating a cement plant outside of Albany, New York. The Company employed over 300 local residents and by 1970 had invested $45 million in the plant. The plant was insured but plant insurance will not cover any damage which is related with environmental and health problem. The insurance company made an agreement with the Cement Company that, if anything goes wrong, insurance company will pay the losses. The plant emitted large amounts of pollution, however, as well as causing constant vibrations and loud noise. Local residents filed suit against the Company, claiming that the loud noise and the vibrations were harming their health and property. The suit asked that the court issue an injunction that would close down the plant until the pollution and vibrations could be eliminated. The Company was already using the best available technology, which meant that the suit was asking that the plant be closed down indefinitely. The court refused to issue the injunction, reasoning that the costs of closing the plant outweighed the benefits to be gained by the residents. Instead of closing the plant, the court ruled that the cement company should pay residents a one—time fee to compensate them for ongoing harms. This fee was calculated to be a fair market price for what the residents would receive if they were inclined and able to rent their property.

Question

1          Was the compensation is justified?

2          Was the decision of the court in this case fair? Explain

3          If you are agree with the judgment of the court so, explain why? If you are not agree with the judgment of the court so, explain why?

4          In your opinion, will you compromise your health and property with the amount of compensation?

5          Who will pay the loss? Cement company or insurance company?

6          Environmental pollution is very harmful, is it acceptable to compromise your surroundings and environment in term of money? Explain

Answer 1

1) The compensation is justified because fee was calculated at fair market price.

2) Yes, because local resedents don't loose jobs, company's $45 Million investments are also protected and also important point is that company is doing its best to protect the environment by using latest technology.

3) I agree the court judgement because of the below reasons

• It has asked the cement company to compensate at fair market price
• The company employed 300 local residents, so wont loose jobs
• The company has made investments worth $45 Million since 1962 through 1970, because of the above judgement company will survive and can make more investments infuture, which leads toadditional employment to local residents.

4) No, we can't compramise our health for copensation. It suit was filed for the cosnstant loud noise and vibration, it may be because the residents are closer to the company. The loud noise and vibration dont effect the climate cahnge or pollution. We can compansate the property in this case because you are getting fair market value and you are retaing your job.

5) In this case both insurance company and cement company will pay the loss becaus the suit was filed for protection of property and health. Vibration which is not related to environmental and health problem but it harms the property, so insurance company is laiable to pay for property related portion.

6) Yes, environmental pollution is very harmful and it is not acceptable to compromise our surroundings and environment in term of money. But in few cases it is acceptable because of the below reasons,

• We have to do our best to protect the environmental pollution, like the company used latest available technology
• If the environmental pollution is restricted to small area,like loud noise effets only to the very close residents. Then we can think of better options to continue or close(in this case better option to countinue because of jobs and compensation linked to fair market value)