SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Neutral Corner
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (1627)12/4/2005 7:36:40 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) of 2253
 
My understanding of the facts, as reported in various news outlets to have been stated by the LSU engineers, is that the flaws in the 17th St. Canal were not design flaws, per se, but gross negligence.

A design flaw despite using the best available science arguably falls within the discretionary function exception, although I don't think gross negligence comes within the discretionary function exception.

The paradigm example of a law suit that would fail due to the discretionary function exception would be death caused by a storm which wasn't predicted by NOAA. (There may even be statutory abrogation of consent to sue for NOAA.)

Obviously this isn't applicable to the areas that were not flooded by the 17th St. Canal but anybody who was high and dry after the storm but flooded by the canal is a potential plaintiff.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News