Louisiana Court Affirms Judgments for Exposure to Chemicals Following 2006 Plant Explosion

Following lower court judgments finding that plaintiffs were exposed to harmful chemicals from a 2006 chemical plant explosion, the plant owner defendant appealed arguing that while it may have caused the explosion, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant actually caused them to be exposed to chemicals.  Last week, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments.

The appeals court found that the record, comprised of expert medical testimony and eyewitness accounts, fully supported the lower courts’ causation reasoning.  The experts had testified as to the path of chemicals after the explosion, the level of chemicals released, as well as the effect of the exposure on the plaintiffs.  Likewise, eyewitness accounts also supported exposure.  Thus, the court held that it was “more reasonable than not” that the defendants had caused plaintiffs to be exposed to the chemicals and, therefore, that the judgments should be affirmed.

With respect to damages, which the defendant argued were excessive, the court noted that the trial court has broad discretion to award damages and that the record indicated that the trial courts had exercised that discretion in evaluating each individual plaintiff’s situation.