You're watching...
Crew members of USS Ronald Reagan claim they were lied to about dangers at crippled nuclear plant
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Meltdown last year in Japan after -- earthquake and tsunami is now the focus of the big lawsuit in an American court within days of the disaster.
US release relief efforts were in full swing American sailors and servicemen risking their lives.
To help those who really needed it now eight sailors from the USS Ronald -- dinner.
Suing a Japanese utility that owns the nuclear power plant claiming it lied.
About the dangers from radiation leaking out of the crippled facility each sailor seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages in creating.
-- and the creation of a 100 million dollar fund to pay for medical treatment.
Today really have a case.
Greg jammed for Karl joins -- -- defense attorney Doug burns also a defense attorney former prosecutor Doug.
Negligence is one thing that's you know whether they eat up properly.
-- maintained -- facility in a safe way.
But flying is something different is that that sort of the second part of this thing.
Yes interest thing Greg because they say they go to duties not the normal -- have a reasonably safe environment.
And then they say there's also a duty not to misrepresent.
On the level of danger involved but I think in our jumping ahead a little I think there are couple of hurdles -- -- sort of procedural matters.
What's the jurisdiction over the person so to speak over the defendant in a California federal court so I think they're gonna litigate that.
I'm not -- -- -- be successful in blocking the case from going forward but the fact of the matter is are there minimum contact the other point of course is the intervening act of god tsunami.
-- and other acts of god and of course the defense is gonna rely on that very very heavily in my opinion.
Now I'm Greg -- It seems like -- damages may be a little bit way down the road speculative for now because some of these guys.
Really are feeling in any of the affects that you know one might otherwise expect -- radiation case.
Well that's right Greg I mean after what you get puck past what Doug was talking about you've got the issue of damages.
I mean.
The fact is that the right now they're healthy.
And assuming that they may get cancer or a shortened life expectancy.
I need to me that's too speculative.
And I mean for instance my father was in the army and back in the fifties was involved in the atomic bomb tests.
He's in his late seventies and still healthy.
Did that could he have argued back in the fifties that exposure to the atomic bomb.
Might have shortened his life for might -- dividend cancer I mean I would almost say look.
If -- -- hypothetically they -- to get cancer.
If you could then connected at that point.
Then come see me with regard to the damages because I think that's the biggest hurdle that they have to get over it.
I'm sorry I -- -- it's -- -- -- here have no idea who it is.
-- -- let me go let me go to you proximate cause this is something that plaintiffs have to prove they have to prove a connection.
Between an injury and negligence.
Absolutely and and of course -- raising the distinction.
Between the old you know bought for causation which as you know -- for being there this wouldn't happen but you have to show that it was -- last link that caused it.
But to pile on even further on on the plaintiff's.
Soccer here yet 5500.
People on the Reagan great.
Which I found to be somewhat staggering when I read that I'm admittedly apparently did distinction is that these eight.
-- more -- more toward the surface but again I think they have a very tough case.
You and -- in the end what's gonna happen of this thing.
I think you may get thrown out.
Frankly I think Doug is absolutely right they have an extremely tough case now well and we wish them all well of course -- in for Carl and Doug burns thank you both.
Smart about it thanks --
