John Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, Humble Incorporated and Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., 156 So. 3d 645

In 2002 hundreds of plaintiffs sued Exxon and others alleging exposure to NORM at ITCO pipeyards; a subset including John Oleszkowicz were tried in Lester v. Exxon.
In Lester the jury awarded compensatory damages for increased risk of cancer to Oleszkowicz ($115,000) but expressly declined to award exemplary damages, finding Exxon did not act wantonly or recklessly under former La. Civ. Code art. 2315.3.
The Lester court instructed plaintiffs they could file a new suit if they later developed actual cancer.
After the Lester verdict Oleszkowicz was diagnosed with prostate cancer and filed a new suit against Exxon asserting compensatory and exemplary damages for the same alleged NORM exposure.
Exxon moved for partial summary judgment, arguing res judicata barred relitigation of exemplary damages; the trial court denied the motion, a jury later awarded exemplary damages, and the court of appeal affirmed while invoking the statutory "exceptional circumstances" exception to res judicata.
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding res judicata bars relitigation of the exemplary-damages issue and that no exceptional circumstances justified relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Oleszkowicz's claim for exemplary damages after the Lester verdict rejected exemplary damages	Oleszkowicz argued his later, actual-cancer suit is a separate action permitted by the Lester court’s instruction and thus exemplary damages may be relitigated	Exxon argued the Lester jury actually litigated and decided the issue of wanton/reckless conduct, so res judicata precludes relitigation of exemplary damages	Held: Res judicata applies; the prior jury’s finding that Exxon did not act wantonly/recklessly is conclusive and bars exemplary damages; the "exceptional circumstances" exception does not apply

Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Company, 666 So.2d 624 (La. 1996) (discusses purpose of res judicata to prevent relitigation and promote finality)
Duffy v. Si‑Sifh Corp., 726 So.2d 438 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1999) (refusal to allow repeat litigation of identical claim is consistent with res judicata)
Kevin Associates, LLC v. Crawford, 917 So.2d 544 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (explains narrow, equitable application of statutory "exceptional circumstances" exception)
Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 102 So.3d 148 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (appellate decision affirming jury verdict in the original NORM trial)