The buffalo creek disaster

Buffalo creek is a disaster that occurred on February 26,1972 when a coal company situated on a hillside in West Virginia burst four days after it was affirmed satisfactory by the federal mine inspector. The improper drainage procedures and heavy rains caused the failure of the coal entrapment (dam).The 17 mile valley in west Virginia was slammed by a wall of water. As a result, approximately 132,000,000 gallons of black water were unleashed.125 people out of a population of 5000 people were killed, the injured were 1121 and over 4000 were left on the streets. This was the most destructive coal mining disaster in history.

The citizens commissions to investigate the buffalo creek disaster which consisted town residents came together in an attempt to get some answers as to why this man made calamity occurred. The buffalo mining- Pittston Company affirmed that the disaster was an “act of God” in that God put all the water behind the dam therefore the company was not accountable for the disaster.

The company made a mistake as it annoyed   the plaintiffs and for this reason became more determined to seek justice.

The plaintiffs approached Arnold & porter law firm where Mr. Stern who was working there back then asked his superiors to appoint him for the case.Mr.Stern investigated the case to unveil what led to the disaster. After much investigation, Stern realized that the disaster could have been avoided if the Pittston Company had renovated the dam’s drainage and all along Pittston knew about the dam’s drainage problem and did nothing about it.Pittson tried to compensate the victims although Mr. Stern was determined to see that the company paid dearly to the plaintiffs. From the assistance of judge K.K.Hall, Pittson Company was forced to pay about 13.5 million dollars to the plaintiffs.Mr.Stern aim was to take the case to public trial which the Pittston Company feared most because would destroy its reputation and public image therefore he was so much disappointed.

On my own point of view, I would say that the conclusion of the buffalo creek disaster case was a bit reasonable because Pittston Company which was in charge of the disaster was made to pay for the human loss, property and other damaged materials though the company would have paid more due to the misery it caused to the survivors. There is evidence that company negligence to repair the improper drainage system of the dam led to the disaster which could have been avoided; for that reason at some point I feel that the company should have faced a public trial. Though the compensation catered for property loss and damages, it couldn’t wipe away the painful experience from the survivors’ memory and also restore the people who died from the disaster.

Ethically, the manner in which Gerald Stern carried out the case is highly ethical because it is evident that after he realized the Pittston company carelessness, he tried all he could in ensuring that the plaintiffs received their justice (Stern 78). He also interviewed some of the survivors to observe some of the negative impacts the disaster had on them psychologically and physically. When he realized how tortured the survivors were, he went ahead and pushed the Pittston Company to either pay more or else face public trial.

The manner in which judge K.K.Hall conducted himself can also be termed as ethical because the end results of the case was due to the fair rulings of judge Hall. Every time judge Hall ruled in favor of the plaintiffs despite the Pittston Company trying to block the effort of Stern. Hall provided evidence brought to the court by Stern before making his judgment. He never conducted himself unethical at any time due to the power of the Pittston Company. In fact what he did, he left the case to the attorney to make a decision whether to make the company face a public trial or not because he wanted the plaintiffs to get hold of full fair dealing.

The buffalo creek management and Pittston Company were highly unethical because after the disaster, the Pittston company claimed it to be an act of God when in fact it had neglected renovating the dams drainage system.Pittson company does not value human life as evidently, we can see it only cares about its image and reputation. The conduct of Pittston Company is unethical because it does not feel the responsibility of the disaster. They did nothing even after the buffalo management notified them about the drainage system because they didn’t consider human life as a main concern.

As we can see, the disaster was due to negligence on the part of the company. Frequenly, individuals or firms hold responsible other things or people for their mistakes where most of the mistakes go unpunished but this case is exceptional because the company bore the consequences of their negligence. Justice was served on the other hand as victims were compensated for the damage. This reveals that the justice system is ethical because it ruled fairly without any favor.

Work cited

Buffalo creek floods: act of man (April 2005), Buffalo creek floods: West Virginia division (October 2007), survivor recounts buffalo creek disaster (February 2009).