# BP Admitting to Gross Negligence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482 "2010-07-29T17:59:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/1 "2010-07-29T17:59:26Z")
That’s what the governor and attorney general of Texas are saying. Here is a letter that Rick Perry and Greg Abbott wrote to BP. [Rick Perry Letter to BP](http://www.scribd.com/doc/34954415/Perry-Abbott-to-SuttlesDoug-Lynch-Jack-201007220650) The basic point of the letter is that the state of Texas requested $25 million from BP like other Gulf Coast states had received and is upset that BP denied it. The interesting thing about the letter is the third paragraph from the bottom. [QUOTE=Perry Letter] Finally, we note that your letter states: “We have not asserted the cap provided under the Oil Pollution Act.” We read that as an attempt to suggest that BP is voluntarily paying claims associated with the oil spill. The truth is that BP has not asserted the cap because it acknowledged that evidence would reveal that the explosion and resulting spill were the product of gross negligence – which renders the statutory cap irrelevant. We know this because, during a conference call with Gulf Coast attorneys general, BP General Counsel Jack Lynch acknowledged that gross negligence would be revealed as a cause of the explosion that led to the oil spill. [/QUOTE] No real debate although it has been debated here whether or not BP was guilty of gross negligence. Perry and Abbott are stating that the BP General Counsel has admitted to it and that there were other state attorney generals on the phone call as witnesses. It seems absolutely unbelievable, but I guess stranger things have happened. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/2 "2010-07-29T19:05:22Z")
That’s not unbelievable. Rick “Good Hair” Perry, Friend of the Earth and scourge of Big Oil. That’s unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/3 "2010-07-29T19:38:28Z")
Just hearsay ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/4 "2010-07-29T20:08:58Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Just hearsay But presumably admissable as a statement against interest. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/5 "2010-07-29T20:12:52Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > Just hearsay > > But presumably admissable as a statement against interest. What does that mean? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/6 "2010-07-29T20:31:08Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > > > Just hearsay > > > > But presumably admissable as a statement against interest. > > What does that mean? There are many exceptions to the hearsay rules. Generally speaking, hearsay isn’t allowed because you cannot test its accuracy. However, lots of the exceptions apply to things which we see as being inherently accurate, and so permit the testimony even though it is hearsay (or define it as not hearsay in some situations). The example here is a statement against interest. Testimony that would otherwise be hearsay is allowed if it involves the declarant stating something that is damaging about themselves, as the idea is they would not typically lie about that. Hence confessions come in, as would something like this. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/7 "2010-07-29T20:37:43Z")
Hey, if they admitted negligence, then Obama wouldn’t have had to shake them down for that settlement the right-wingers were talking about. You’re not suggesting Fox News commentators made that whole thing up, are you? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/8 "2010-07-29T21:39:08Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > > [@villa](#): > > > > > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > > > > > Just hearsay > > > > > > But presumably admissable as a statement against interest. > > > > What does that mean? > > There are many exceptions to the hearsay rules. Generally speaking, hearsay isn’t allowed because you cannot test its accuracy. However, lots of the exceptions apply to things which we see as being inherently accurate, and so permit the testimony even though it is hearsay (or define it as not hearsay in some situations). > > The example here is a statement against interest. Testimony that would otherwise be hearsay is allowed if it involves the declarant stating something that is damaging about themselves, as the idea is they would not typically lie about that. Hence confessions come in, as would something like this. I did some further study on the “statement against interest” exeption to hearsay. It would only apply if Jack Lynch was unavailable to testify. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/9 "2010-07-29T21:44:19Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I did some further study on the “statement against interest” exeption to hearsay. It would only apply if Jack Lynch was unavailable to testify. I forgot it was one of those. Lucky I’m not trying the case… 🙂 I’d have to look at all the exceptions to see if it would fit into one. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/10 "2010-07-29T21:50:14Z")
It wouldn’t be necessary to bring in the Perry letter as long as Lynch can be subpoenaed to testify himself. If he denies it under oath, then other witness could be called in rebuttal (whoever was the source of Perry’s information). ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/11 "2010-07-29T21:54:58Z")
There is also an exception/protection for statements made in the process of settlement negotiations which may or may not apply here. If the conference call could be categorized as settlement negotiations, then nothing said in it would be usable in court. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/12 "2010-07-30T00:00:57Z")
Since BP had not asserted limited liability under the Oil Pollution Act\*, it’s immaterial if the statement was made during settlement negotiations, no? We’re talking about a suit alleging gross negligence, which would be separate and apart from Texas’ claim against BP for voluntary damages. I think. \*Whose idea was it to grant oil companies limited liability, anyway? ETA: It was a Democrat! What the hell? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/13 "2010-07-30T00:23:11Z")
I thought that one of the reports early on in this disaster centered around BP execs worrying the rig management about being behind schedule and essentially ordering them to use seawater instead of the drilling mud to speed up the drilling process, a decision which resulted in what the survivors of the rig disaster claim is the cause of the explosion and resultant spill due to seawater not having the requisite mass to withstand a “kick” properly. Am I insane on that? I know I read it somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bp-admitting-to-gross-negligence/548482/14 "2010-07-30T00:32:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Since BP had not asserted limited liability under the Oil Pollution Act\*, it’s immaterial if the statement was made during settlement negotiations, no? If push comes to shove, I suspect quite a few billable hours would be spent litigating the issue.