(The article below refers to The cases include Fisher v. Halliburton, 06-cv-01731, and Lane v. Halliburton, 06-cv-01971, both in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston))
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk
Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) — KBR Inc. and its former parent, Halliburton Co., filed a request in court to tell a jury that the U.S. Army and Iraqi terrorists are responsible for deaths and injuries to company truck drivers in Iraq in 2004.
Families of the dead and injured drivers claim in a federal lawsuit that KBR and Halliburton officials sent unarmed civilians into active-combat zones in April 2004 knowing they would be attacked and possibly killed. The contractors and their families say Houston-based KBR misrepresented the risk and should be held accountable.
The military isn’t a party to the lawsuit, and the action by Halliburton and KBR won’t force the army to defend its conduct in court. The companies are using a Texas law that lets juries consider whether others bear responsibility for some of a victim’s injuries, even if those third parties aren’t named in the lawsuit.
“To the extent that any person or entity bears any legal liability as asserted by the plaintiffs, the United States caused or contributed to the injuries for which plaintiffs seek recovery and is a responsible third party,’’ company lawyer Robert Meadows said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Houston after business hours yesterday.
Meadows said the army’s own investigation into the convoy attacks “demonstrates that the conduct of the United States was a legal cause in fact of the injuries to the plaintiffs.’’
‘Second Guessing’
The convoy drivers and their families in 2005 sued Halliburton and KBR, the largest U.S. military contractor in Iraq, and those suits were dismissed in 2006. U.S. District Judge Gray Miller found the claims couldn’t be litigated during wartime without “second guessing’’ the military’s role, which Halliburton and KBR argued is forbidden by the U.S. Defense Base Act.
In May 2008, an appellate court disagreed and sent the convoy claims back to Miller, saying it might be possible for the companies’ roles in the attacks on employees to be evaluated separately without having to judge the military’s role. The New Orleans-based appellate court said it is “constitutionally impermissible’’ for jurors to review the military’s “wartime decision-making.’’
KBR was spun off from Houston-based Halliburton in 2007.
KBR spokeswoman Heather Brown declined to comment on the litigation when reached after hours yesterday.
‘Top Priority’
“The safety and security of all KBR employees and those the company serves remains the company’s top priority,’’ Brown said in an e-mailed message. “Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families who were affected by this tragic incident.’’ Lawyers for the convoy drivers and their families couldn’t be reached for comment on the companies’ filing last night. Previously, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have objected to efforts by KBR and Halliburton to blame the military.
“This is an attempt to have an ‘empty chair’ defense,’’ plaintiffs’ lawyer Tommy Fibich said in an interview last month, after the companies told Miller they were considering naming the U.S. Army as a responsible third party in the case.
“Under Texas law, if you are going to name a responsible third party, there has to be some standard to judge their actions by, and the Fifth Circuit has told us we can’t do that with the military,’’ Fibich said. “Same thing with the terrorists.’’
The cases include Fisher v. Halliburton, 06-cv-01731, and Lane v. Halliburton, 06-cv-01971, both in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). (End of Article)
A new lawsuit adds an unusual dimension to all the claims of sexual deviance at Kellogg, Brown & Root.
