case

2
Neighbors reported to the press that they had smelled a gas leak several hours before the explosion and had called Litoral Gas. Company director José Mara Gon!"le! said that the company had received no such calls# and thought that callers might have dialed the $%% emergency number instead. &%'( )rosecutor Camporini reported at the trial that the building had experienced several gas leaks before the explosion. &%*( +he provincial ,udiciary launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the explosion. &%%( +he prosecution conducted a search and sei!ure at the offices of Litoral Gas to confirm the absence of customer complaints about the gas leak. &%-( Judge Juan Carlos Curto ordered the arrest of Carlos svaldo Garca# an employee of the department responsi for gas service to the area. &%/( 0e 1as captured during the night# &%2( and his assistant )ablo Mi3o surrendered to police the follo1ing day. &%4( 5ccording to 1itnesses# one employee fled in a van before the explosion# 1hen he reali!ed the severity of the gas leak# 1hile another remain to evacuate people from the endangered area. &%$( +he van belonged to Garca# &%*( 1ho experienced an acute stress reaction during the trial. &%*( Curto checked the remnants of the employee6s & clarification needed ( 1orkshop to verify Garca6s testimony. &7'(&7%( )rosecutor Graciela 5rg8elles said that# according to the investigation# Litoral Gas igno for help from Garca# 1ho 1as not properly trained to manage such a situation. +he ,udge suggested that documents sei!ed from Litoral Gas might prove the existence of customer re of a gas leak. &77( Curto thought that the employees might not bear sole responsibility# and tha liability of Litoral Gas had to be investigated as 1ell. &7%( )ablo Mi3o 1as released from prison# but Curto refused to release Garca# saying that Mi3 had extenuating circumstances 1hich Garca did not. &79( Mi3o6s ,ob 1as to give Garca the re:uired tools# not to do the maintenance. 0e 1as in the street# 1atching over the van# 1 1as not properly parked and locked# and did not see Garca6s 1ork before the explosion. C stopped short of pronouncing Mi3o innocent at that early stage. &7*( 5s the case expanded beyond his ,urisdiction# Curto recused himself from the trial and 1a replaced by Javier ;eltramone# &7-( 1ho released Garca from prison. &7/( Litoral Gas demanded ;eltramone6s recusal for expressing an opinion about the case to the press. &72( +he appeal court agreed in a 7<% vote to remove ;eltramone# and the case 1as transferred to )atricia ;ilot &7( Garca had claimed that he 1as follo1ing instructions received in the days before the explosion# so ;ilotta summoned the technical officers of Litoral Gas to clarify that poin &74( Litoral Gas said that Garca had not received any instructions prior to the explosion. &7$( Litoral Gas proposed an out=of=court settlement to the relatives of the victims# offering %7'' >? dollars per s:uare meter of collapsed building# in addition to compensation for l life. &9'( @ice Governor Jorge 0enn re,ected it as immoral# &9%( and most of the families also initially

Upload: akshay-jain

Post on 01-Nov-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

information on gas ecplosion

TRANSCRIPT

Neighbors reported to the press that they had smelled a gas leak several hours before the explosion and had called Litoral Gas. Company director Jos Mara Gonzlez said that the company had received no such calls, and thought that callers might have dialed the 911 emergency number instead.[10]Prosecutor Camporini reported at the trial that the building had experienced several gas leaks before the explosion.[14]The provincial judiciary launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the explosion.[11]The prosecution conducted asearch and seizureat the offices of Litoral Gas to confirm the absence of customer complaints about the gas leak.[15]JudgeJuan Carlos Curtoordered the arrest of Carlos Osvaldo Garca, an employee of the department responsible for gas service to the area.[16]He was captured during the night,[17]and his assistant Pablo Mio surrendered to police the following day.[18]According to witnesses, one employee fled in a van before the explosion, when he realized the severity of the gas leak, while another remained to try to evacuate people from the endangered area.[19]The van belonged to Garca,[14]who experienced anacute stress reactionduring the trial.[14]Curto checked the remnants of the employee's[clarification needed]workshop to verify Garca's testimony.[20][21]Prosecutor Graciela Argelles said that, according to the investigation, Litoral Gas ignored calls for help from Garca, who was not properly trained to manage such a situation. The judge suggested that documents seized from Litoral Gas might prove the existence of customer reports of a gas leak.[22]Curto thought that the employees might not bear sole responsibility, and that the liability of Litoral Gas had to be investigated as well.[21]Pablo Mio was released from prison, but Curto refused to release Garca, saying that Mio hadextenuating circumstanceswhich Garca did not.[23]Mio's job was to give Garca the required tools, not to do the maintenance. He was in the street, watching over the van, which was not properly parked and locked, and did not see Garca's work before the explosion. Curto stopped short of pronouncing Mio innocent at that early stage.[24]As the case expanded beyond his jurisdiction, Curtorecusedhimself from the trial and was replaced byJavier Beltramone,[25]who released Garca from prison.[26]Litoral Gas demanded Beltramone's recusal for expressing an opinion about the case to the press.[27]The appeal court agreed in a 21 vote to remove Beltramone, and the case was transferred toPatricia Bilotta.[2]Garca had claimed that he was following instructions received in the days before the explosion, so Bilotta summoned the technical officers of Litoral Gas to clarify that point.[28]Litoral Gas said that Garca had not received any instructions prior to the explosion.[29]Litoral Gas proposed anout-of-court settlementto the relatives of the victims, offering about 1200 US dollars per square meter of collapsed building, in addition to compensation for loss of life.[30]Vice GovernorJorge Hennrejected it as immoral,[31]and most of the families also initially rejected the proposal.[32]By May 2014, however, almost half of the families had accepted the settlement.[33]