DoJ accuses BP of "wilful misconduct" BP acted with "wilful misconduct" in the lead-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, the US government has alleged at the start of the trial over the accident, as it pushes for the highest possible penalties and damages. In his opening statement, Mike Underhill, presenting the case for the US Department of Justice, said that even if any individual action by BP staff might not amount to wilful misconduct, the "accumulation of actions" that caused the disaster reached that standard. He argued that BP had a "culture of corporate recklessness," which put saving money ahead of safety. The trial in New Orleans will determine liability for civil damages and penalties over the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 men and led to up to 4.1m barrels of oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. It opened with statements from lawyers for private sector plaintiffs, the US government and the states of Alabama and Louisiana, arguing that BP and its contractors Transocean, the owner of the rig, and Halliburton, which supplied cement intended to seal the well, had all acted with gross negligence; an accusation that all three companies have rejected. Transocean responded saying that its staff had been working under the direction of BP, which was responsible for the disaster. BP and Halliburton were scheduled to give its opening statement later in the day. Wilful misconduct is a higher standard than gross negligence. The DoJ is alleging that BP knew or should have known that its decisions would lead to an accident. A finding of wilful misconduct would expose BP to penalties under the Clean Water Act of up to $17.6bn, and would increase the likelihood that the judge would impose a penalty closer to that maximum. BP accepted ordinary negligence last year in a $4.5bn settlement over criminal charges brought by the US government, but argues that is very different from the higher standards of gross negligence or wilful misconduct. Daniel Jacobs, a former DoJ lawyer now a professor at American University, said an analogy for wilful misconduct could be "speeding, knowing the brakes are worn, and ignoring the brake warning red light on the dashboard." In his opening statement, Mr Underhill said BP had been on a "course of recklessness charted in Houston and London." He added: "The evidence will show BP put profits before people, profits before safety, and profits before the environment." His statement focused on the critical "negative pressure test," intended to show whether the well had been properly sealed with the cement to prevent leaks of oil and gas. Luther Strange, the attorney-general of Alabama, one of the gulf coast states that have between them claimed more than $34bn in economic and environmental damages, confirmed that they were seeking punitive damages from BP and the other companies involved. In the run-up to the trial, the states had been in talks about a possible settlement deal with BP, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations. However, one person familiar with the case said it had been difficult to reconcile their competing interests, describing the effort to bring them to a common position as "like herding cats." The first phase of the trial, intended to establish the causes of the accident, is scheduled to last for three months. A second phase, intended to assess how much oil was spilled into the gulf, is planned for September.