HR: 14:00h
AN: S23E-02 INVITED    [Abstracts]
TI: Seismic Activity: Public Alert and Warning: Legal Implications
AU: * Zocchetti, D
EM: David_Zocchetti@oes.ca.gov
AF: California Office of Emergency Services, 3650 Schriever Avenue, Mather, CA 95655, United States
AB: As science and technology evolve in ways that increase our ability to inform the public of potentially destructive seismic activity, there are significant legal issues for consideration. Even though countries and even states within the United States have differing legal tenets that could either change or at least re-shape the outcome of specific legal questions that this session will be pondering, there are fundamental legal principals that will permeate. It is often said that the law lags behind society and in particular its technological developments. No doubt in the area of warning the public of impending destructive forces of nature or society, the law will need to do some catching up. The law is probably adequately developed for at least some preliminary discussion of the key issues. No matter the legal scheme, if there is a failure or perceived failure in the system to warn people of a pending emergencies, albeit an earthquake, tsunami, or other predictable event, those who are harmed or believe they are harmed will seek relief under the law. Every day there are situations wherein the failure to warn or to adequately warn is key, such as with faulty or defective consumer products, escaped prisoners, and police high-speed vehicle chases. With alert and warning systems for disaster, however, we have a unique set of facts. Generally, the systems and their failures occur during emergencies or at least during situations under apparently exigent circumstances when the disaster's predictability is widely recognized as less than 100 percent. The law, in particular United States tort law, has been particularly lenient when people and organizations are operating during compressed timeframes and their actions are generally considered necessary to address circumstances relative to public safety. The legal system has been forgiving when the actor that failed or appeared to fail was government. The courts have liberally applied the principal of sovereign immunity to governmental actions during emergency situations. At a minimum, the courts have shown a high degree of deference and provided immunity protection for discretionary governmental actions. For example, government organizations are often protected from legal redress for making basic policy decisions such as whether or not to implement an early warning system for emergency actions. Some national and state governments, however, have gone further to provide a legal shield of immunity through specific statutory enactments. Statutory protections generally extend to both the governmental organizations and the decision makers therein. In contrast, these protections are not always extended to third parties such as private businesses, which are often part of the chain of people and organizations that are critical for providing emergency notifications to the public. These businesses include the warning devices manufacturers, the communications systems installers, the software developers, and many other non-governmental parties essential to notifying the public. It can be argued that the legal risk in providing these private sector products or services serves to ensure their quality. But these businesses' real or perceived risk of liability could dissuade their participation in the notification system, or at least chill their innovation. Those involved in designing, developing, implementing, and operating emergency notification systems must consider how their unique situation will be impacted and potentially altered by the legal environment, or in some cases how they should affect change to that legal environment in order to have successful warning systems.
DE: 7200 SEISMOLOGY
DE: 7299 General or miscellaneous
SC: Seismology [S]
MN: 2007 Fall Meeting