Where does liability start and end

Do the victims of a natural disaster have a legitimate claim against scientific experts who fail to adequately warn them beforehand about the dangers ahead or who give them badly judged assurances that there is not much to worry about and leave them ill-prepared when disaster strikes. An Italian court is about to decide on this question.

The relatives of more than 300 people killed in a 6.3 magnitude earthquake at L’Aquila, Italy on 6 April, 2009 are claiming about R536 million ($67 million) in compensation from seven Italian experts – accusing them of manslaughter for failing to give adequate warning about the quake.

Italy’s Civil Protection Agency had organised a meeting of a major risk panel at L’Aquila at the end of March, 2009 amid ongoing seismic activity in the area that deeply worried residents of the city.

Prosecutors argue that the experts, six scientists from the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology and an official of the Civil Protection Agency, gave the public only an “approximate, generic and ineffective assessment of seismic activity risk as well as incomplete, imprecise and contradictory information” in a memo which concluded that it was improbable that there would be a major earthquake.

Six days later, the magnitude 6.3 quake hit the city and surrounding areas, causing wide destruction and loss of life.

The court case drew strong reaction from the world’s scientific community on the basis that it is impossible to accurately predict an earthquake. The American Association for the Advancement of Science in June last year wrote to Italy’s president, Giorgio Napolitano to express concern over the indictment of their Italian colleagues.

They described the charges as both “unfair and naïve.” The letter argues that there was no way the scientists could have warned the population of the city “credibly” about the impending earthquake.

The matter, however does not seem to be as simple as all that. Members of the risk panel did not just stick to their initial memo. After the meeting some members of the panel made reassuring statements to the media.

One member, Bernardo De Bernardinis, said in an interview with a local TV station that the scientific community was reassuring him that the preceding numerous tremors were in some ways a good thing, as they released seismic energy.

The interview even ended with a lighthearted joke when the journalist interviewing him said: “Meanwhile, let’s go and have a glass of wine,” to which Bernardinis responded with an “Absolutely!”

The result was, according to the prosecution, that everybody relaxed as more tremors hit the area in the days leading up to the quake. Tens of thousands of people had been lulled into a false sense of security and no emergency plans were made for, among others, evacuations that could have saved lives.

The trial, which will continue on 1 October, is sure to be closely followed by scientists across the world. If the charges of manslaughter and unintentionally causing injury are proved, it could result in prison sentences of up to 15 years.