Evening star., 1955-09-18
Private Use of Atomic Power Seen
Posing New Questions for Courts
BY PHIL YEAGER
and JOHN STARK

BY PHIL YEAGER
and JOHN STARK
Within six months Of the time
that Congress authorised private
ventures into atomic energy &C.
tivities. American business had laid
more than $500 million on the line
for investment In atom power
plants.
This Is only part Of the story.
Half q dozen other industries or
professions are also getting In
volved. Without doubt American
business is ready to move into the
atomic energy field.
One gauge Of the imminence Of
the atoms effect on everyday life
is the sudden concern Of lawyers
over new problems being created
by the private use of atomic apergy.
Actually this concern ID sudden
only in a relative sense. A special
committee OF the American Bar
Association has been looking into
legal aspects OF atomic energy for
two years. But 1t Ii only within
the past few weeks that the public.
or even the ABA as . whole. has
been made acquainted with the
ultra-tough atomic problems now
facing lawyers and legislatures
throughout the country.
Here are some ~ them.
How con secrecy requirements be
met?
Much Of the workings Of the
atomic energy process involve
highly restricted information. A
certain amount Of secrecy is essen
tial to the national security. But
where suits arise. how much In
formation can come out Ia court
and who shall decide whether or
not 1t can be offered In evidencef
Conflict between the Atomic En-
e9gy Commission and the courts
may arise here. Moreover. II some
information is excluded from tbs
case on the grounds Of security.
one party or the other may be de-
prived Of due process" Some
common meeting ground must b.
worked out In this AREA II excess
sive litigation and appeal ID TO be
avoided.
What changes should be mode in
statutes Of hmitotion?
A dramatic example of the prob
lens In this category occurred with
recent reports Of q Japanese moth
er, bombed at Hiroshima. whose
baby developed 1eukemia, supposed
" as . result Of the mothers ex-
poSure to atomic radiation. In this
case o delay Of nearly decade
divided the cause from the effect.
Statutes Of limitation In most
States require that suits for dam
ages be brought within two or three
years from the time Of the alleged
wrongful act" Obviously this is
impossible II knowledge Of the
damage does not occur until o much
later date. Perhaps . rule viii be
worked out whereby limitation
statutes begin to run only from .
''time Of notice" 1. e.. from the time
the complainant first perceives
something wrong with himself or
his property. But there are bugs"
In this idea, too. one Of which is
the excessive time lag In judicial
administration.
Whet changes should be mode in
workmen's compensation?
Tennessee and New Mexico, two
States which house sizable atomic
energy plants. have already
amended their workmen's compen-
sation laws to acknowledge the
special time problems connected
with radiation damage.
The dif1iculty in this field Of law
is much the same as that posed by
statutes Of limitation. In most
States the law requires injured
workers to file o notice Of injury"
with employers within 80 TO 80 days
from the time Of injury. Claims
must be filed within two or three
years. But since. in regard to radi-
alton damage. neither the time Of
injury nor the extent Of damage
II known Immediately. current
laws are apt 10 make recovery
under this system impossible.
Whose low governs "transitionoI
domoee"?
Let's suppose that q shipment OF
atomic materials Is initiated in
Pennsylvania and sent by train to
Florida. En- route radioactive dam
age Is done to personnel on the
train. to q carload Of Photographic
plates standing on q siding In the
District Of Columbia. and to road
side peach orchard in Georgia.
Whose law is going to control suits
for damage? Pennsylvania? The
Districts? 0eorgia's? Whose stat
ute Of limitations win apply? In
the case Of the train personnel.
could suits be brought IN Feoer4l
court on the basis of Uncle Sans
Jurisdiction over matters Of inter-
state commerce?
Problems in this area are apt 10
be especially knotty.
What product IiobiIity" should
ottaeh TO manufacturers?
Atomic energy products may be
loaded with poisons and hazards
that would make o negligence law
yer lick his chops" That In part
Of what former Acc Chairman
Gordon Dean told q Pittsburgh
law forum several years ago.
Manufacturers negligence ha-
bility. Of course. has been well
established for years. But in recent
times the courts have become more
liberal In applying 1t. Even where
negligence cannot be positively
shown in the manufacture, the
products made are often Of such
xanksxvA that %hn ~As1v%p vnN,,lwn %Nm