452 F.Supp.3d 455
E.D. La.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Shivers, Mead, Russell) are fishermen who responded to the Deepwater Horizon explosions on April 20, 2010; they alleged purely emotional injuries and asserted claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- They allege they initially observed the rig fire from miles away, heard distress calls and a concussive shock/sonic boom, then went to the scene to search for survivors and at times came within 100–200 feet of the burning rig.
- While searching they allegedly experienced intense heat (faces burned, hair singed), heard subsequent explosions/rumblings, navigated among burning debris, sustained scratches/bruises and a smashed hand, and had their boat damaged.
- The court previously ruled the original complaint failed to state NIED/IIED claims as to these plaintiffs but allowed amendment; plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding factual detail; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court analyzed the amended pleadings under the zone-of-danger test and the physical-injury/impact test (general maritime law) and under the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard, and concluded plaintiffs still failed to plead a plausible NIED or IIED claim.
- Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were within the "zone of danger" for NIED | Plaintiffs feared immediate physical harm from further explosions/debris and thus were in the zone | No objective immediate risk alleged; no debris actually launched near their boat; many vessels were present so allowing recovery would create unlimited liability | Dismissed — allegations do not show objective, immediate risk required by zone-of-danger test |
| Whether plaintiffs satisfy the physical injury/impact test for NIED | Physical effects (burned faces, singed hair) and bruises/smashed hand show sufficient physical impact to support NIED | Physical injuries are trivial or incidental and do not underlie emotional harms alleged; injuries unrelated to the fear of the fire | Dismissed — physical effects are at most trivial and not the basis for alleged emotional injury |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a plausible IIED claim | Plaintiffs contend the extreme chaos, repeated explosions, and close proximity support IIED | Defendants argue allegations do not plausibly show extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress required | Dismissed — IIED allegations remain implausible on their face |
| Sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) / plausibility standard | Amended factual details make claims plausible under Iqbal/Twombly | Even accepting facts as alleged, they do not permit a reasonable inference of liability under maritime NIED/IIED law | Dismissed with prejudice — claims fail the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., 774 F.3d 927 (5th Cir.) (general maritime law bars recovery for purely witnessed emotional harm but allows NIED if zone-of-danger or impact tests met)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir.) (zone-of-danger requires objective immediate risk of physical harm)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (Sup. Ct.) (policy rationale for limiting emotional-distress recovery; near-miss principle and liability limits)
- Ainsworth v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 972 F.2d 546 (5th Cir.) (trivial or non-impact injuries insufficient for physical-injury test)
- Gough v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 996 F.2d 763 (5th Cir.) (example where substantial physical impact supported NIED recovery)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Plaisance v. Texaco, 966 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.) (zone-of-danger/impact analyses under maritime law)
- Gaston v. Flowers Transp., 866 F.2d 816 (5th Cir.) (subjective belief of immediate harm is also required alongside objective risk)
- Anselmi v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 813 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. La.) (discussion of objective zone-of-danger standard)