Litigation for failure to warn of natural hazards and community resilience

Abstract

This ... was inspired by the chapter in Kumar and Srivastava's book 'Tsunami and Disaster Management: Law and Governance' where they argued for an increased use of tort litigation as a way of enhancing justice for disaster "victims". They argued that "... those in whose hands lay the security and welfare of hundreds and thousands of people in the aftermath of a disaster" should be strictly liable for any failure to warn the community of the impending disaster. It is argued here that this is the wrong approach. Tort liability is an individualistic response to a disaster and could divide a community and threaten their resilience. It is unlikely that tort actions will actually enhance responders and managers desire to act in the best interests of the community. Tort action with its culture of blame will discourage volunteers, and distort the distribution of funds so that resources are expended on litigation and what is available for relief is not distributed on the basis of need, but the basis of blame. A community response, based on community ownership of prevention, preparation, response and recovery will do far more to benefit both the community's, and the individual's recovery, than encouraging people to litigate.