Rhodes v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7199
4th Cir.
2011

Background

  • Residents of Parkersburg, WV receive Water Department supply; DuPont facility in Wood County discharged PFOA contaminating public water and blood of residents; plaintiffs sued in WV state court, removed to federal court under diversity; district court denied class certification for medical monitoring and traditional tort claims; plaintiffs amended to add public nuisance and sought additional class on medical monitoring; plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their individual medical monitoring claims and appealed the remaining rulings.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plaintiffs prove injury to sustain traditional tort claims. Rhodes argues PFOA in blood shows injury. DuPont argues no actual injury; mere presence or risk is insufficient. No injury proven; summary judgment for DuPont on negligence claims.
Whether battery claims fail under WV law. Rhodes contends blood alteration constitutes battery under Restatement §15 or §18. DuPont argues WV does not recognize such battery; requires actual physical impairment or different standard. Battery not established under current WV law; affirmed summary judgment for DuPont.
Whether trespass claims survive given water contamination. Rhodes asserts invasion of water supply constitutes trespass. DuPont contends no direct interference with possession of land. Trespass claim fails; summary judgment for DuPont.
Whether private nuisance can be maintained given public nature of water contamination. Rhodes claims private nuisance or class-based relief. Water contamination affects a public right; no private nuisance., Private nuisance not established; public nuisance claims dismissed; no class basis.
Whether plaintiffs have standing to appeal denial of class certification for medical monitoring after voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs maintain standing to appeal under class-representative theory despite dismissal of individual claims. DuPont asserts no standing since no self-interested party remains. Court lacks jurisdiction to review medical monitoring class-certification issue; standing not satisfied.

Key Cases Cited

  • Atkinson v. Harman, 151 W.Va. 1025, 158 S.E.2d 169 (1967) (W.Va. Supreme Court 1967) (injury element in negligence claims)
  • Hark v. Mountain Fork Lumber Co., 127 W.Va. 586, 34 S.E.2d 348 (1945) (W.Va. Supreme Court 1945) (trespass requires unauthorized entry and interference with use of land)
  • Duff v. Morgantown Energy Assocs., 187 W.Va. 712, 421 S.E.2d 253 (1992) (W.Va. Supreme Court 1992) (distinguishes private vs. public nuisance)
  • Int'l Shoe Co. v. Heatwole, 126 W.Va. 888, 30 S.E.2d 537 (1944) (W.Va. Supreme Court 1944) (special injury requirement for public nuisance)
  • Curry v. Boone Timber Co., 87 W.Va. 429, 105 S.E. 263 (1920) (W.Va. Supreme Court 1920) (special injury principle in public nuisance)
  • Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 206 W.Va. 133, 522 S.E.2d 424 (1999) (W.Va. Supreme Court 1999) (medical monitoring requires increased risk of disease; independent tort claim)
  • Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3 (1975) (Supreme Court 1975) (diversity-state-law interpretation by federal courts should be conservative)
  • Geraghty v. United States Parole Comm'n, 445 U.S. 388, 100 S.Ct. 1202 (1980) (Supreme Court 1980) (standing constraints for class-action appeals)
  • Roper v. Deposit Guarant. Nat'l Bank, 445 U.S. 326, 100 S.Ct. 1166 (1980) (Supreme Court 1980) (standing in class-action appeal after mootness)
  • Toms v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, Inc., 179 F.3d 103, 105-06 (4th Cir. 1999) (4th Cir. 1999) (settlement releases may bar appeal of class certification)
  • Richards v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (D.C. Cir. 2006) (reservation of class rights may preserve standing)
  • Dugas v. Trans Union Corp., 99 F.3d 724 (5th Cir. 1996) (5th Cir. 1996) (reservation of right to appeal may preserve standing)
  • Narouz v. Charter Communications, LLC, 591 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (9th Cir. 2010) (reservation of class rights not sufficient in some circuits)
  • Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009) (7th Cir. 2009) (settlement recitation not sufficient for standing)
  • Anderson v. CNH U.S. Pension Plan, 515 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008) (8th Cir. 2008) (standing requirements for class claims)
Read the full case