While we wait for the appeal to actually be filed, there is plenty of time for armchair lawyering about how to make a stronger case for injured veterans in the future. Is the argument that KBR failed to bring incinerators online actually the secret key to success?
The courts are not about to second guess military decisions about how to wage war. Military contractors are also immune from lawsuits to the extent they are operating under the control and direction of the military in combat-related tasks. It was given that waste disposal was essential to the basic military mission at the Forward Operating Bases (FOB) in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also fairly clear that it was a military decision that KBR implemented to dispose of waste through open-pit burning, rather than by transporting it off the base.
READ MORE BURN PIT LEGAL NEWS
At the same time, various military directives specifically required the incineration of medical waste and prohibited the disposal of other kinds of hazardous waste through open burning. KBR argued in its defense that the installation of incinerators would have required military authorization and funding. Without more information about the process for or restrictions on a request for authorization or funding, it is difficult to assess the strength of this defense.
However, if KBR was acting in breach of either its contractual obligation to the military or in contravention of military directives about how that task was to be carried out, it might be liable for the harm that happened as a result. The incinerator angle may still hold out some promise.