Offshore Accidents

March 26, 2012

Lawsuit Over Jackson Parish Car Wreck Dismissed Due to Late Filing

Under Louisiana law, the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit may file his complaint with the court by fax. However, the plaintiff must, within five days of transmitting the fax, forward to the clerk of court the original, signed complaint and any fees that are due. If the plaintiff fails to forward the original document, the faxed copy will “have no force or effect.” La. R.S. 13:580. The fax option can potentially help preserve an action that is facing the expiration of its prescriptive period. However, as we will see with the recent case of Taylor v. Broomfield, the courts do not take lightly the requirement that the original complaint must be submitted to the clerk within the time frame outlined in the statute.

On September 17, 2009, Jarred Taylor was involved in a serious car accident in Jackson Parish. The other party to the collision was Brandon Goss who was driving a Mack truck owned by Broomfield, Inc. Taylor suffered various injuries including two broken ribs, multiple contusions, and lacerations to his face. Taylor’s lawyer initiated a lawsuit against Broomfield and its insurer on September 17, 2010 (exactly one year after the accident and the last day of the prescriptive period) by transmitting a faxed complaint to the Jackson Parish Court. The faxed complaint was not notarized. Although Taylor’s counsel had, according to Louisiana statute, until September 24, 2010 to send the original complaint to the court’s clerk, the original document was not filed until October 5, 2010. The original complaint filed with the clerk on October 5 included a verification notarized by one Donna Kay Tucker on September 20, 2010.

On November 12, 2010, Broomfield filed an exception of prescription requesting that Taylor’s suit be dismissed because it was filed after the one-year prescriptive period had elapsed. A hearing was held on January 13, 2011. In opposition to Broomfield’s exception, Taylor’s attorney argued that when his office faxed the complaint on September 17, 2010, his staff immediately mailed the original complaint, along with the filing fees, to the clerk of court. Several staff members from the law firm testified to this effect, but none of them could explain who the notary, Donna Kay Tucker, was or why the complaint’s verification reflected a date after the day the firm put the document in the mail. Ultimately, the trial judge denied the exception of prescription and held that the notary date was “merely harmless error” and that the complaint had been timely forwarded by Taylor’s counsel per state law. Broomfield appealed.

March 22, 2012

Texas Class Action Regarding Chemical Release Demonstrates Premise of “Close Enough” in Doctrines

by Berniard Law Firm

Our system of law is designed to handle most situations. A great deal of situations can be dealt with under the doctrines of law. Our system also has a failsafe of to ensure basic fairness when law provides no satisfying result. Equitable doctrines fill in the gaps in law. Historically a separate system of courts would dispense equitable remedies. In most modern American jurisdictions, though, equitable relief is granted by courts of law. In the case of Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. the district court employed an equitable doctrine incorrectly. That court used a doctrine called cy pres.

The doctrine of cy pres comes the French “cy pres comme possible” which literally translated means “as close as possible.” It is an equitable doctrine that allows a court to look for the second best way in which to use undistributed funds. This doctrine was first used in the area of testamentary charitable contributions. If a person’s will left a sum of money with general charitable intent but he gift somehow failed, a court would look for something else to do with the money that would serve the same or a similar purpose. The doctrine was later adapted to the area of class actions.

In Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. a class action was filed against the owner of a factory that had allegedly caused damage through toxic emissions near Bryan, Texas. The court found that there were three classes of people harmed and divided the money accordingly. Subclass B members were presented with two options for compensation. Members of this subclass could opt to receive a one-time payment or continuous medical monitoring over time. The rate of participation in the medical monitoring program was incredibly low. This led to money being left at the end of the medical monitoring program. The parties had to return to court to figure out what to do with the leftover money.

February 19, 2012

The Third Part of Our Discussion Regarding the Anatomy of a Class Action Certification

by Berniard Law Firm

Following the prior discussion of numerosity and commonality, we will now examine the court’s analysis of typicality under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591(A)(3). This prerequisite obligates the court to examine whether the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the entire class. The requirement is met if the claims of the class representatives arise out of the same “event, practice, or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and those claims are based on the same legal theory.” See Gudo v. Admins. of Tulane Educ. Fund.

The court reviewed the three putative class members presented by Plaintiffs. Ramona Alexander lived in Hahnville on the day of the chemical release. She testified that she smelled a strong odor in her home on the morning of July 7, 2009 which caused her to become sick and vomit. The odor also caused burning in her eyes, throat irritation, and shortness of breath. Vanessa Wilson lived in Waggaman on the day of the chemical release. She awoke to an odor that caused eye irritation, nausea, coughing, and a sore throat. Wilson testified that she traveled to Avondale that morning where the odor persisted; her symptoms worsened. She also received a panicked phone call from her mother who was being ordered to evacuate her home in St. Charles Parish. Upon arriving at her mother’s house, Wilson observed her mother vomiting and suffering from burning in her eyes. Melissa Berniard, who is a licensed attorney in Louisiana, testified that she was in her home in Orleans Parish on the morning of July 7. She awoke to a foul odor that suggested to her that something may have been burning; she soon experienced eye irritation, headache, nausea, and feelings of anxiety. Berniard traveled to Jefferson Parish later in the day and spoke with others who experienced similar symptoms. The court found that Wilson, Alexander, and Berniard all offered “typical complaints of the constituency of the class” that were corroborated by Dr. Williams’s analysis of numerous class members’ intake forms which captured their symptoms. Accordingly, the court concluded that the “issue of whether or not a release of ethyl acrylate can cause the damage alleged by the class representatives is common to all class members and is adequately represented.”

The court next considered whether the proposed class representatives are adequate under the Louisiana Code by referencing a definition adopted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. In essence, the Fourth Circuit’s analysis of adequacy concerns whether the proposed representatives’ claims are “typical of” the claims of all class members and whether the damages asserted by the representatives are of the same type as the class as a whole. See Dupree v. Lafayette Ins. Co. The court noted that Wilson, Alexander, and Berniard all testified to being present in the defined geographical area on July 7, 2009, suffering from the type of symptoms that were common to the class, and being willing to serve as class representatives. Thus, the court held that the adequacy requirement was met with respect to the plaintiff representatives. The court also made a finding on a related matter that Plaintiffs’ counsel are “highly skilled attorneys with experience in class action litigation” and well qualified to serve as class counsel. The court expressed that it was “particularly impressed” with the attorneys’ presentation at the certification hearing, and felt that “there is no dispute as to the competency and the zealousness of class counsel.”

February 17, 2012

Second Part in Understanding the Anatomy of a Class Action Certification

by Berniard Law Firm

In our previous post, we began a discussion of the Union Carbide/Dow Chemical Taft plant chemical leak litigation filed by the Berniard Law Firm. This post continues with a review of the court’s analysis of numerosity in certifying a class. Under this requirement, the class must be so large that joinder of all members is impracticable. La. Code Civ. P. Art. 591(A)(1). Generally, a class action is favored when there are so many plaintiffs that individual suits would unduly burden the court, and so the class action would be more judicially expedient than other available procedures. See Cotton v. Gaylord Container. There is no distinct number of plaintiffs needed to fulfill the numerosity requirement. In this case, the proposed class included all the residents of St. Charles Parish as well as certain residents of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes–clearly a large number. The court found persuasive the fact that “the size of the individual claims of class members is small enough that individual lawsuits are impracticable,” but that that “separate suits would unduly burden the courts.” In the court’s view, a class action would “be more useful and judicially expedient.” Thus, the court concluded that “numerosity exists,” but that “the class is not too numerous to manage effectively.”

The court next examined the issue of commonality, or whether there were questions of law or fact common to the class. To satisfy the commonality requirement, there must exist “as to the totality of the issues a common nucleus of operative facts.” McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services. of La., Inc. A common question is one that, when resolved for one class member, is resolved for all members. This issue is closely related to the predominance requirement, where the common questions predominate over any individual issues not shared among the class members. The Louisiana Supreme Court has indicated that predominance “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class.” The goal is to “prevent[] the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials. Brooks v. Union Pacific R. Co. The same court has also held that a mass tort can only be brought as class action if it arose from one single cause or disaster; however, this requirement does not mean that the amount or extent of damages must be identical for all class members. “[V]arying degrees of damages … does not preclude class certification.” In order to meet the common cause requirement, each member of the class must be able to show individual causation based on the same set of facts and law that any other class member would use. See Bartlett v. Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Services, Inc.

With these considerations in mind, the court analyzed the common threads identified by the Plaintiffs as to their claims. First, all class members were physically located in the identified parishes on the date and time of the chemical release. They all suffered various (but similar) physical injuries and financial losses as a result of the release. Also, common questions of law and fact surrounded the Defendants’ negligence in failing to maintain its plant and prevent the chemical release. The court concluded that it was “satisfied … from the evidence presented that common factual issues predominate with regard to whether Defendants took reasonable steps to prevent the release of [ethyl acrylate] that occurred on July 7, 2009 and whether or not the release could cause the harm as alleged by the Plaintiffs to the members of the class.” The court’s reasoning was based in part on the testimony offered at the hearing by Dr. Patricia Williams, a toxicology expert. Dr. Williams concluded that the symptoms described by the class were consistent with the type of exposure to ethyl acrylate that resulted from the release at the Taft plant. Although the Defendants offered its own expert witness to rebut Dr. Williams’s testimony, the court nevertheless found that “a method of assessing general causation for the whole of the class exist[ed].” This permitted the court to reach the conclusion that common factual issues were present. The court thus identified a “common nucleus of operative facts” that permitted a finding that “uniform allegations of complaints of harm amongst the large number of class members that stem from one central release event” involved common legal issues among all members that superseded any individual concerns.

February 15, 2012

Anatomy of a Class Action Certification

by Berniard Law Firm

Early in the morning of July 7, 2009, a 640,000 gallon chemical storage tank at Union Carbide/Dow Chemical’s Taft plant began to rupture. The tank contained ethyl acrylate, a foul-smelling chemical used in making various products including industrial flavorings, fabric finishes, pigments and dyes, floor polishes, adhesives, and caulk. The substance is listed as a possible carcinogen by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and is known to cause a number of significant heath issues such as burning of the mucous membranes and eyes as well as respiratory irritation and nausea upon contact through the air. Westerly winds gusting as high as 20 miles per hour carried the chemical vapor into the neighboring communities. St. Charles Parish sheriff’s deputies began evacuating residents while officals from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality were summoned to perform air testing. Numerous residents in St. Charles Parish and surrounding parishes experienced extremely unpleasant physical symptoms as they came into contact with the chemical vapor.

The Berniard Law Firm filed a lawsuit on July 29, 2009 on behalf of those who suffered effects from the Taft plant chemical leak. On December 15, 2011, Judge Herbert Cade of the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The class is defined as persons living or located in St. Charles Parish and certain areas of Orleans and Jefferson Parishes on July 7-8, 2009 who experienced “eyes, nose, or throat irritation, coughing, choking or gagging, or nausea, or headaches, dizziness, trouble breathing or other respiratory issues” as a result of their exposure to the ethyl acrylate that escaped the Taft facility. The court’s order contains an illustrative description of the process by which it analyzed the Plaintiffs’ argument for class certification, and an exploration of that analysis will serve as the basis for this and a series of subsequent blog posts.

Previously on this blog, we have examined the requirements for class certification in a federal case according to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Louisiana’s Code of Civil Procedure, in Article 591, sets forth a similar set of standards for certification. Specifically, a plaintiff who seeks to represent a class must show:

January 25, 2012

“Law of the Case” Doctrine, Part 2

by Berniard Law Firm

In our most recent post, we began a review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s application of the law of the case doctrine in a lawsuit that followed an auto accident in Vernon Parish. The plaintiffs, in opposing UUT’s motion for summary judgment, argued that UUT’s no-coverage arguments had previously been heard in a “peremptory exception of no right of action” filed by UUT which the trial court had denied. Both the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs of appeal in that ruling; thus, the plaintiffs argued that the law of the case doctrine should “preclude UUT from re-litigating those same arguments” in the instant case. The plaintiffs also argued that the federal case cited by UUT offered “no precedential value in this state court action.” UUT’s reply asserted that the exceptions previously heard by the trial court “dealt with procedural, rather than substantive, matters,” and were not properly before the trial court at the exceptions hearing. In sum, UUT argued that the trial court’s rulings on the exceptions were interlocutory and therefore “subject to revision by the trial court at any time prior to rendition of final judgment.” The trial court granted UUT’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims based on the finding that there was no coverage under the UUT policy. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that UUT’s arguments had previously been heard and rejected in an earlier action (the peremptory exception) and therefore “the law of the case doctrine should have been applied because no new argument or evidence was produced by UUT.”

The Third Circuit concluded that UUT showed that “the policy it issued to Olympic did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims.” The truck Coronado wrecked was a vehicle leased from Olympic, and the UUT policy by its language excluded coverage for leased vehicles. Rather than refute UUT’s position on the merits, the plaintiffs simply “argued that the issue had already been litigated and that the trial court was bound to follow its earlier ruling.” The court rejected that the law of the case doctrine applied. It noted that UUT did not raise coverage issues when it filed its exceptions in the trial court. Instead, “the plaintiffs brought up the issue of coverage in their opposition to UUT’s exceptions.” In fact, UUT was not even made aware of the plaintiffs’ position on coverage until the day of the hearing. “Clearly,” the court concluded, “the issue of coverage under the UUT policy was not squarely before the trial court at the hearing on the exceptions.” In the view of the court, “[t]he issues raised in the motion for summary judgment filed by UUT … did not cause indefinite re-litigation of the same issue[s] as were raised in its [exceptions motion].” Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UUT.

The Willis case is a stark reminder to litigants that the rules of civil procedure in Louisiana can be extremely complex. Even when the disputed issue in a case (such as whether an auto insurance policy covers a particular driver) is fairly straightforward, a plaintiff can face a complicated path to a resolution without the counsel of an experienced attorney.

January 23, 2012

Exploring the “Law of the Case” Doctrine in Vernon Parish Car Accident Litigation

by Berniard Law Firm

Under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, judgments are either interlocutory or final. A judgment that “determines the merits [of an issue] in whole or in part” is a final judgment, while a judgment that determines “only preliminary matters” is an interlocutory judgment. Generally speaking, final judgments can be appealed, but interlocutory judgments cannot unless there is a statutory exception that permits the appeal. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083. If a court renders a judgment that addresses fewer than all of the claims or that concerns fewer than all litigants in a case, that judgment is not final and may be revised by the court at any time prior to a final judgment. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B). With parallel reasoning, if a court of appeal denies a writ of appeal, thereby declining to exercise its supervisory oversight of a trial court, the court of appeal cannot affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the trial court. This means that “any language in the court of appeal’s … writ denial purporting to find no error in the trial court’s … ruling is without effect.” See Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc..

Related is the “law of the case doctrine.” This principle pertains to:

“(a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case.” Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans.

December 5, 2011

Louisiana Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Award in Oil Refinery Release (Part II)

by Berniard Law Firm

The Bailey case, as discussed, was determined based upon the precedent set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. The focus here is on two causes of action, Whether a plaintiff can file both, and receive punitive damages for, a wrongful death and survivorship cause of action.

The Plaintiffs in Bulot were two families who sued the defendant oil refinery for wrongful death and survival. The District Court granted summary judgment, meaning there were no genuine issues of material fact, in favor of the defendant as to one family’s wrongful death action and its claim for punitive damages in its survival action. The Court also granted the defendant’s exception of no right of action as to punitive damages for the second family’s wrongful death action.

Each family had a family member that died after being exposed to radioactive waste. One family alleged that the deceased had worked for a company that engaged in the cleaning of oilfield tubing and pipes. He died of pancreatic cancer in 1999, allegedly as a result of exposure to radioactive waste while employed by the company. The second family’s family member died while La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.3 (‘the statute’) was in effect (between 1984 and 1996). The statute provided that punitive damages may be awarded, in addition to general and special damages, if it is proved by the plaintiff that the sustained injuries were caused by the defendant’s “wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.”

December 3, 2011

Louisiana Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Award (Part I)

by Berniard Law Firm

The Bailey v. Exxon Mobil Corporation case finds its conclusion based on the precedent set forth in Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services. The focus is on the application of a statute, and differentiating events that take place prior to the statute’s enactment, and how the Court will analyze events that continuously occur which began before the enactment of the statute and continue after its enactment.

The issue before the Court in Bailey is whether the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages in a wrongful death action are precluded by Bulot. The plaintiffs in Bailey alleged that either they or their decedents were exposed to naturally occurring radioactive material at over 600 pipe yards throughout Louisiana, six other states, and overseas, through their work with, or with a subsidiary of, the Exxon Mobile Corporation. They also alleged they were entitled to punitive damages under former Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.3.

Punitive damages are intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff often receives most if not all of the punitive damages award. The Court states that the statute in question, La. C.C. art. 2315.3, effective September 3, 1984 and repealed April 16, 1996, provided for punitive damages “if it [were] proved that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s wanton or reckless disregard for public safety in the storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous or toxic substances.” The court in Bulot states that “punitive damages cannot be recovered by way of a wrongful death action. The right to a punitive award is a different kind of right or legally enforceable claim than the right to compensatory damages. As such, a claim for damages pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.3 cannot exist as a component of a wrongful death action, as that is limited to compensatory damages for the survivor’s (victim’s) own injuries.”

December 1, 2011

Trial Necessary to Determine Jones Act Applicability (Part 2)

by Berniard Law Firm

Not all employees furthering a vessel’s mission are seamen. They can provide short-term or even land-based support. If so, they aren’t seamen under the federal Jones Act. Whether Kerry Becnel was a seaman when he was injured was the issue considered in Becnel v. Chet Morrison, Inc., No. 2010-CA-1411 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/11). The court of appeal reversed the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court and sent the case back for trial.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, the first question to determine whether an employee is a seaman is simple: did the employee “contribute[ ] to the function of the vessel or accomplishment of its mission.” Becnel did contribute. He worked 17-hour days in preparing meals, cooking food, and cleaning. He sustained injuries when he fell off a barge at the end of one of those long working days. The parties did not dispute that Becnel met this test.

The second part of the Chandris test is harder: “whether that employee had a connection to a vessel in navigation which was substantial both in terms of duration and nature.” Two questions arise. Did the employee have a connection to a vessel in navigation? Was that connection substantial in its duration and nature.