Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: Karen Silkwood Message-ID: <3116@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Sun, 15-Jan-84 14:28:10 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3116 Posted: Sun Jan 15 14:28:10 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jan-84 15:31:45 EST References: <15308@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 33 -- From: Crockett.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA -- The Supreme Court today overruled the Oklahoma State Court decision in a -- suit by Karen Silkwood's father and children against Kerr-Magee (sp?) -- owners of the Plutonium plant where she worked prior to her accidental -- (?) death in 1974 at the age of 28. The award was based on the -- contamination she received while working there as a technician. The -- vote was 5 to 4 to award the children $10M. (For some technical reason -- this reverts back to the state court, so the actual amount may end up -- being less.) However, the Supreme Court declared that Kerr-Magee had -- acted "wantonly and recklessly" in this matter. -- -- A nice footnote to last night's movie Silkwood. For those of you who -- haven't seen it yet, do. I found it a thoughly believable and creepy -- movie. -- -- Meg -- From what I have seen of the news reports, the Supreme Court did not vote "to aware the children" any particular amount. The issue that went to the Supreme Court was whether the children could sue Kerr-Magee at all. Now that that issue is out of the way, the defendant will definitely appeal the amount of the award. Appeals in legal cases usually relate to a limited point of law. In this case, the Supreme Court wasn't asked to determine whether the damages were appropriate. (That separate issue could conceivably still make it to the Supreme Court, I suppose.) A lower court will now handle the appeal on the question of damages. Dave Sherman Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave