271 So. 3d 205
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- A carbon-steel elbow installed in Exxon's East Coker Unit (originally built by Foster Wheeler in 1962–63) ruptured on Aug. 2, 1993, causing an explosion, fire, ash/debris (including asbestos) dispersal, two employee deaths, and community exposure to smoke and particulate matter.
- Foster Wheeler's design specified a chrome-moly elbow resistant to sulfidation; the installed elbow was carbon steel and was later insulated with asbestos, hiding it from inspection; it performed for ~30 years before failing.
- Thousands of residents filed mass tort suits in Baton Rouge City Court; six representative plaintiffs were tried. City Court found Exxon negligent (not strictly liable) and awarded modest general damages; Exxon appealed the fault allocation and damages.
- On multilayered review (district court, state courts, remands), higher courts directed the city court to determine whether Foster Wheeler installed the wrong elbow and to reconsider damages under Howard v. Union Carbide standards; no new evidence was ordered.
- After remand the city court apportioned 100% fault to Exxon and reduced general damages consistent with Howard; Exxon sought review. The appellate court affirmed, and this court (on transfer) denied writs and affirmed the judgment after remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of fault between Exxon and nonparty Foster Wheeler | Foster plaintiffs argued owner/operator (Exxon) responsible for safety and should be held liable | Exxon argued Foster Wheeler created the hazard by installing wrong-material elbow and fault should be allocated to Foster Wheeler | Court upheld city court: Foster Wheeler not shown negligent by preponderance; reasonable basis to allocate 100% fault to Exxon (manifest-error review) |
| Burden to prove nonparty fault | Plaintiffs: fault may be allocated only if defendant proves nonparty fault by preponderance | Exxon: Foster Wheeler's role in design/installation makes it primarily at fault; Exxon lacked actual knowledge | Court applied La. C.C.P. arts. 1812, 1917, found Exxon failed to prove Foster Wheeler's fault by preponderance; burden on defendant not met |
| Quantum of general damages (post-Howard) | Plaintiffs: symptoms, fear, contamination, directives to shelter-in-place, and continuing fear justify awards | Exxon: awards excessive; symptoms minor/temporary, analogous to Howard allergy-like exposures requiring significant reductions | Court found city court followed Howard guidance, considered proximate symptoms, exposure, fear, disruption; no abuse of discretion in the reduced awards |
| Standard and scope of remand review (evidence/no new trial) | Plaintiffs: city court may decide based on trial record; remand limited to record | Exxon: needed new trial or additional evidence to allocate fault to Foster Wheeler fairly | Court held remand required reconsideration based on the existing record only; no new trial ordered; city court's fact findings reviewed for manifest error and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 967 (La. 1985) (factors for allocating fault among tortfeasors)
- Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 50 So.3d 1251 (La. 2010) (standards for assessing quantum in community chemical-exposure cases)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (deference and scope of appellate review of general damages)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest-error standard and deference to fact-finder)