The real liability of industrial wind turbines has never been proven.  Using comparables, here is a simple analysis of the situation:
If we become injured or ill we all look for a reason.  If we can find a cause, then the owner of the cause becomes responsible (liable).  That seems to be simple reasoning in law.  In those cases, case law exists and will prevail.
But here is where the problem starts with industrial wind turbines, because of the new fangled term “green” that has been given to them. We do not look at the real problem here, and I don’t mean whether those things are really green or not. This is not the point at this time.  We are discussing what happens if someone gets injured or becomes ill due to wind turbines.  Then the question becomes, who is liable?
Currently, it seems to be fashionable to call anyone who claims illness from industrial turbines “a lunatic or crazy”. That can and will not last.  It used to be fine to use DDT or asbestos.  It used to be safe and fine to smoke in the presence of non-smokers.  The court will decide otherwise regarding the health effects of industrial wind. 
The industrial turbines that are being built are for the most part built by companies who lease the land from the landowner.  The landowner has a contract in place with the industrial wind turbine company to lease the land to these companies to build turbines.  If I get injured or ill because of turbines, then I have the right to start legal proceedings.  My question is, why would I sue the industrial wind turbine company? After all, the wind turbine is only a tenant. It could be that proceedings should start against the landowner.  Let him deal with his tenants.  The landowner is liable for property taxes.  We know that the wind company will compensate the landowner for property taxes, but the landowner has to make sure that they get paid.  Therefore, it could be reasoned out that any legal proceedings should start with the landowner.
That is why I have made calls to the insurance industry.  On my own farm, I carry a sizeable liability policy; no one can take on the liability risk on his/her own anymore. After talking to many of the insurance companies, it became clear that the landowner in question who leases his land to the wind company has absolutely no coverage inside his normal liability policy.   Secondly, it can be argued that those claims are environmental claims (stray voltage, vibration, flicker, etc.). Then I went back and said, “What about coverage under my environmental policy that I have as an extension of my liability policy?”  The answer was again very clear; absolutely no coverage for leased land with industrial turbines.  Therefore, the farmer who leases his land to industrial wind companies has no liability coverage.  He has a farm policy, not industrial wind turbine coverage that specifies industrial turbines on the land he leases out.  That by itself is very dangerous in terms of liability exposure.
Here are some things to think about:

  • How much trust do I put in anybody who is potentially not liable to begin with?
  • If wind companies are potentially liable, it could cost so much that the wind company might run if and when lawsuits are filed.
  • But the landowner’s livelihood is on the line.  This is a person or family that has everything it owns on the line, including assets other than the leased land. 
  •  We have listened to the wind industry telling us not to worry; they guarantee that the sun will rise again.  They are our new friends who are well guided by fancy lawyers located far away.
  • The landowner who leases the land to industrial wind companies has old friends who do not count anymore, because those old friends could get sick.  

The precautionary principle should be practiced as recommended by independent experts and not the attitude that is out there that people with health effects from turbines are crazy, and health effects are inadmissible.  There will come a time that the courts will decide the proper liability.  It might be sooner or later, but those wind leases are in place for a very long time and the courts have time to prove the truth.

Current political support can and will change.  Your land is at stake; your family’s wellbeing is at stake.  Please practice the precautionary principle and don’t trust that lawyers from the wind companies are going to protect you when you already have signs out there that they do not.  No one can ignore forever that there are no health effects from wind turbines.
I myself think, and would like to warn, that any land that has a wind lease on it could be classified as “environmentally polluted land” and might potentially have very little or no value until the wind lease runs out.  In most cases, those leases last for as long as it is beneficial for the wind company (eternity).

Luke Schilder
Member of C.H.A.T


Posted on September 20, 2010, in Health, Ian Hanna Lawsuit, Take Action, Wind Developers-Proponents. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: