Legal News

On Battlefield Injuries and Legal Liability

By Ashby Jones

A question: Should soldiers injured in active duty be able to seek compensation for injuries experienced in zones of war?

The answer, established by years of precedent, is no. But certain circumstances can put the established theory to the test. Take, for instance, a recent lawsuit brought by a group of Indiana National Guardsman against — not the federal government — but oil company KBR Inc.

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Indiana, the Guardsmen allege that KBR “disregarded and downplayed” the fact that the site at Qarmat Ali was coated with the hazardous chemical sodium dichromate. They were exposed, they say, to the chemical that is used as an industrial anti-corrosive agent to protect pipes. As a result, the soldiers suffered numerous health problems.

KBR, on the other hand, has said in court filings that it was simply carrying out the duties in its contract, that no soldiers were harmed, and that once the chemical was discovered, the company worked to make the area safe.

Should the plaintiffs be allowed to recover? The question is put forth by Dionne Searcey in the WSJ’s latest Law Journal column.

A half-century old U.S. Supreme Court ruling first put forth the rule barring soldiers in active duty from filing suits against the federal government. The military gives soldiers free medical treatment and stipends in some instances, the reasoning goes, so they are duly compensated for whatever befalls them on the battlefield.

But what about suits directed at third-parties, like KBR? Generally speaking, contractors too are immune from suits if they can successfully prove they have lived up to the specifications in their government contracts.

And what if they haven’t?

Well, that brings us to the KBR suit. The plaintiffs allege that more than half of the workers at the Qarmat Ali site reported symptoms of acute poisoning by the beginning of August 2003, yet the work went on for another month. KBR managers inspected the site that summer, the suit alleges, and they wore protective suits, though the soldiers had none.

When the Guardsman started having bloody noses, which the suit says are telltale symptoms of exposure to the chemical, KBR managers told them it was an effect of the “dry desert air,” and that they must be “allergic to sand,” according to the suit.

Contractors and lawyers who represent KBR say the suits scapegoat the company when it was merely carrying out what the military instructed. By carrying out duties assigned by the military, KBR should enjoy the same legal protections, they say.

In the case of the Indiana National Guardsmen, “We are going to vigorously defend ourselves,” says KBR’s general counsel, Andrew Farley.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 07, 2010 (boomark / email).