Larry and Rosie Adams VS Rhodia, Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corporation
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOillSIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCillT 2006 CA 1803 LARRY AND ROSIE ADAMS VERSUS RHODIA INC AND EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION Judgment Rendered SEP 2 6 2007 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 483 752 Honorable Janice Clark Aidan C Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Reynolds Christopher L Whittington Baton Larry Adams LA Rouge L Victor Counsel for Defendant Appellant Exxon Mobil Corporation Gregoire Melissa A Hemmans Baton Judge Presiding LA Rouge Michael P Cash Pro Hac Vice Houston TX BEFORE CARTER C J KUHN PARRO GillDRY AND McCLENDON JJ C I L R McCLENDON J In this only remaining defendant of the suit personal injury plaintiff Larry at Exxon Mobil appeals the judgment trial After Adams a Exxon Corporation for the damages in favor thorough review of the record we reverse FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND contract By sulfuric acid Mr Adams to Exxon for returned the spent acid acid for future acid was onto a which by at its Rhodia Rhodia facility After the acid through a 14 May Exxon and other Rhodia customers Mr Kenneth Fontenot to pump dedicated all valves to to protocol the tank the incident in the Fontenot normal off until an The another Mr Fontenot Tank 10 could be found for such on some Although temperature an time between 5 30 cause a m of the sudden rises in the chemical storage tanks 2 by shutting off According to Mr increase in temperature temperature ofthe rise that concerned Mr Fontenot compliance the tank to remain blocked May 15 2000 plaintiff determine the In an Mr Fontenot then noted intake and outtake procedure would also require morning to first off the tank blocked log and told the shift supervisor explanation next quickness s sulfuric acid from Exxon showed Fontenot told Mr Adams of the rise in the employee of spent sulfuric acid from Rhodia receiving spent including relieved Mr Fontenot procedure At Rhodia the cars unusually rapid and high rise in temperature of 120 degrees with company used Exxon During the unloading procedure he noticed that Tank 10 barge was 2000 attempting was was provided pipeline for regeneration of the often stored in tanks and sometimes held in rail On Rhodia use to use Inc employer Rhodia Mr Larry Adams and 6 00 Mr a m Despite the normal temperature rise before were not uncommon it was Mr Adams to transfer the unloading resumed Rhodia ordered from Tanks 7 and 10 Tank 10 valve After before Mr Adams room shutting and then was On procedure outside released from the tank as severe were as eventually chemical block off the tank began Rhodia by manually exposure to the gas By filed petition a for the time of trial Mr various additional defendants opinion Exxon released free 6 30 a m gas release or was an to Dr Parks intervening insurer and 6 50 accepted a m testimony the as an hydrocarbons on An insoluble May 15 that Tank 10 must a m theorized that the insoluble to have on the opened In into the 2000 the was sent to facility not a Rhodia 40 minutes Based on an intake material from the morning of the accident Dr Parks load entered Tank 10 that time hydrocarbon 3 to and approximately reach the Rhodia a hydrocarbon load for pipeline estimate it would take of expert threat when combined with the acid and a hydrocarbon load around 6 30 on insoluble material that should have been released into the at night The release occurred about 10 16 Dr Steanson Parks who example jet fuel posed pipeline spike in block off Tank 10 sulfur to defendants Rhodia and Exxon morning of the accidental assumption a Mr Fontenot had the jury trial plaintiff primarily relied insoluble the alarm sounded he noticed Mr Adams and his wife Rosie pipeline sometime between According an opened dismissed from the suit engineer Dr Parks an room by amending and supplemental petitions and At the for barge injuries from his Adams had settled with Rhodia named to When Mr Adams May 8 2001 damages naming same went Mr Adams suffered a m the onto Mr Adams electronically stopped the unloading of the tank from the off the valve dioxide gas soon as gauge in the tank farm control Following the temperature As barge unload the spent acid to checking the control the onto spent acid at In his opinion the combination of the free spent sulfuric acid triggered release from an hydrocarbon and the exothermic reaction that led an Dr Parks believed that the introduction of insoluble Exxon unit into the pipeline rise in temperature recorded material insoluble or to Rhodia and visible insoluble by the was evidenced the gas to hydrocarbon by a twenty plus degree Exxon unit at the time it sending was by the post accident finding of a half inch coating of hydrocarbon the surface of the on remaining material in Tank 10 However on cross examination Dr Parks was advised counsel that the tank had been blocked off the night before and only for unloading of the material just prior the gas release In response Dr Parks admitted that he had load entered Tank 10 and he had no to evidence that no other explanation a by Exxon was at 10 s opened 16 a m hydrocarbon for how a load of hydrocarbon could have entered the tank on the morning of the accident On Dr rebuttal Parks agreed with the plaintiff s counsel assertion that regardless of when the free or insoluble the tank the presence of insoluble proved their theory linking that hydrocarbon A representative of Rhodia who findings of Rhodia stream of s on was called post accident investigation spent acid which had been stored in in Tank 10 a already had different chemical compositions and should different streams were sitting in the tank for weeks then allowed a rail the theory by plaintiff related the and blended it with car two streams of not to react to spent acid have been mixed The with each other while produced According 4 was Admittedly Rhodia took a The process that than usual of sulfur dioxide gas Thus it the part of Exxon the spent acid material two got into in the tank after the accident Exxon to the gas release plaintiff s relied on to establish fault Exxon hydrocarbon from a higher percentage Rhodia the unloading procedure agitated the combined streams of the confined sulfur dioxide gas that evidence that an insoluble the 2000 accident and Dr injured to cause the sudden release Mr Adams Rhodia found hydrocarbon load from Exxon played was no any role in Mr Adams injury to Kerry Dooley enough called by Exxon and accepted as an expert in chemical engineering played part in the accident He testified that spent acid generally contains about no eight nine percent soluble to According aso to Dr build up in temperature material agitated Mr Adams days the a of spent acid were indicated as and the gas When the was by the was the unloading procedure began released The tank suddenly explosive If the material in the tank had been gas would have been released and vented venting s release of gas that every few agitated gradually Another byproduct of the reaction was the light insoluble hydrocarbon that floated the surface of the tank In Dr hydrocarbon measured in consistent material It with such sat in was post accident determined Dooley Tank reaction a Tank lO before the undisputed was not lO s opinion after the during the three the amount accident to four week part of a free or insoluble entirely period the unloading procedure began that the insoluble hydrocarbon analyzed by either party was a to of insoluble was found in Tank 10 Therefore through testing whether the insoluble hydrocarbon tank post accident or sitting result of the reaction sulfur dioxide gas overwhelmed which allowed the capacity was injured As streams and spent acid reacted aso and built up in the tank was hydrocarbon called acid soluble oils Dooley while the for weeks in Tank 1 0 the produced Dooley agreed with Rhodia that hydrocarbon Dr byproduct of the spent acid hydrocarbon load from 5 and aso Exxon such as it was seen in the reaction jet not fuel or After the jury retired jury asked If compensation one come question a from Rhodia Rhodia had settled and come party thus no Exxon believed that the only Rhodia argued Plaintiffs believed that the a was additional payment answer was yes exchange the court addressed the jury as to Mr follows The Court The no and question is requires be may a not susceptible further explanation allocated Compensation will amongst come from a to being answered yes or Be instructed that fault and against any person party Everybody understand Jury Foreperson No Ma am The Court All right Fault any person a or negligence A person may be partnership They can an can be allocated individual or a against corporation or be persons and divided into fault Compensation however would come from a party in the litigation A party is different from a person A person may be a In this litigation there are two parties You party understand Sort of Juror One more time The Court You have two and concepts you compensation re talking about here fault Fault may be allocated allocated means spread among any person any persons involved in any way You can spread fault Compensation on the other hand comes 6 and the settlement payment made by Rhodia would be the total compensation paid Adams After the to how as answer was no fault for the accident at The Rhodia would all the was on Counsel for both sides longer was no from Rhodia if argued that forwarded to the trial judge hundred percent of fault the question should be answered would was from A party is a member of the action the lawsuit Does that amplify it for you Everybody understand a party Juror So your honor we asked the question are saying you our wording is off when The Court You will recall that the court equal before the court persons I explained that to you All right persons A a A are person is suggested party however the party A party is a court litigant a did that all to you corporation is instruct you the action not party to a who on Jury Foreperson We do have one question too that we left in there The Court All right What is your question Jury Foreperson There and breakdown a financial breakdown sheet the top it Mr Larry Adams Exxonmobil I think that sort of on slash there was a at was Exxonmobil but on Rhodia versus we know it s that sheet it did say Rhodia slash Exxon The Court Well means that that was was the style of the case initially the denomination of the case The style in the very beginning Juror Your Honor could I ask how many in this case paIiies are involved numbers The Court Well of read to you course you can You will recall that the court the contentions of the parties The court read the plaintiffs contentions and defendant s contentions recall 7 to you Do you Juror Yes Ma am The Court All So you know the right answer Plaintiffs right defendants After the exchange ended instruction that had instruction not Exxon been agreed given led the jury denied the the Specifically to Exxon 4 461 000 00 in on the the court s an gIvmg by the parties and argued that the they do not find Exxonmobil compensation for Mr Adams jury rendered jury assigned and The two verdict in favor of the a percent of the fault court A plaintiffs judgment incorporating to Mr Adams and awarded eighty eight percent to Rhodia damages a the verdict ten total of was signed March 27 2006 Exxon filed motion for remittitur and a the verdict both of which the no to objection After trial percent to believe that if to responsible that there will be objected appeal requesting an denied were Exxon increase in the fault judgment notwithstanding a appealed Plaintiff answered assigned to Exxon APPLICABLE LEGAL PRECEPTS When there is mistake of law factfinder s instruction may be Inc 05 implicit error forecloses the fact decision has been tainted or v in the fact finding by an finding improper State Ford Motor 925 So 2d 1 4 2003 0037 p Mutual and App v Bayou p 5 or when a when the prejudicial jury de novo La review Insurance App 1 Cir Industrial Maintenance Services I Cir 9 26 03 8 a as Automobile Company 2004 1311 Levy 7 La Farm process such process erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence appropriate Company 15 6 legal 855 So 2d 968 974 writs denied 2003 3161 865 So 2d 727 when the La 2 6 04 A de appellate Fund Insurance Co 2003 0037 review rather than novo court 865 So 2d 724 and 2003 3200 La 2 6 04 a remand is conducted has all of the facts before it Ferrell 94 1252 p 7 La 2 20 95 v only Fireman 650 So 2d 742 747 s Levy 7 855 So 2d at 974 at p ANALYSIS The record before between the wording court of the the by recovery Jones St v 2d So 1331 to question presented and assumed that a From complete review of the our finding was of the trial by the jury it is misled by the instructions no fault on legal ordered by whether Hospital 94 2217 sense a court inferred comi The that the jury by party 7 p InJury Rather the jury award damages jury should have based s misled the jury at p See 652 the on on a as a we it is apparent from that is answer as a was or to same payment been instructed not to actually be paid concern compensated for his fairly assign fault and evidence presented whole conclude that the instructions crucial point we thus tainting the verdict Therefore the jury verdict and s only responsibility Considering all these factors process and La person 4 10 95 or using the word in the not was the trial court itself with how Mr Adams would likely court 1335 exchange with the strict given by the more the part of Exxon would result in Mr Adams from anyone Francis Cabrini court Although the jmy used the word compensation the exchange parties and the jury especially in light of the actual likely than not that the jury no is us no interdicting 9 them at the fact trial finding weight should be accorded will review the record de 7 652 So 2d at 1335 to novo See Jones 94 2217 Based that the on a thorough de plaintiff did accident and his burden not meet injury The record did alleged release by Exxon of allow support plaintiff s theory that pipeline or documentary that the tank at any time the on morning 10 no opened for intake morning The came only from Mr opened for unloading which would was flow of material out of the tank not into the tank insoluble hydrocarbon accident addition on evidence the record caused incompatible contains Exxon rested by Rhodia streams were The s unreasonable jury even s no decision plaintiff presented Alternatively the presence explaining Rhodia of spent acid after expert and other evidence findings an of a the surface of the material in the tank post accident hydrocarbon load from Exxon played was proving the release of load from Exxon to Rhodia at any time before the Exxon did present hydrocarbon sheen reverse was There is of the accident the tank the next He testified that the tank a release a hydrocarbon load and before the Nor is there any evidence in the record In find morning of the accident Tank insoluble an testimony concerning opening Adams we show that Exxon caused the At that time Mr Fontenot blocked off the tank evidence testimonial from the us unusually high increase in temperature the night before the an accident to not lOon the hydrocarbon load entered Tank showed review of the record before novo was or that finding an insoluble pmi in the accident and that the gas to a long period of stagnation rebuttal evidence incorrect mix and unload two improperly or to After show that Exxon that Rhodia s s investigative unfounded if the finding no s that jury verdict was plaintiff proved between Exxon and the gas release was 10 not the tainted we would requisite causal link clearly wrong and not supported by the record and on appeal See Stobart State v Department of Transportation Development 617 So 2d 880 882 La 1993 Because plaintiff load of insoluble able not was to show specifically how hydrocarbon from Exxon entered Tank 10 which linchpin of his causation theory plaintiff asserted that the one half inch of dedicated to to light hydrocarbon receiving Exxon Exxon explanation as to however how the coupled with Rhodia plaintiff s reliance as s on the the mere unproven injuries justice is of presence of assumptions served likely was a the a a tank causallinlc fundamentally unrebutted occurred on Exxon s top of the evidence investigation and conclusions overwhelmed only proof that not a to prove light hydrocarbon sheen most Tank 10 and caused the accident many sufficient provided amount internal was when presence of mere found after the accident in Exxon materials remaining material in the tank post accident or a a sheen observed hydrocarbon hydrocarbon load from Essentially the plaintiff Exxon entered was left with too Despite the seriousness of Mr Adams by imposing damages on a party in the absence of proven fault Having found that plaintiff failed reverse appeal the judgment and dismiss are assessed to to meet his burden of plaintiff s suit against the plaintiff Larry Adams REVERSED AND RENDERED 11 Exxon proof we Costs of the STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 1803 LARRY AND ROSIE ADAMS VERSUS RHODIA INC AND EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION GUIDRY J dissents and GUIDRY J dissenting I assigns reasons respectfully dissent from the majority and dismissing the plaintiffs claims against trial judge jury trial s the judge has trial judge is must 97 995 not case duty a to La C C P required to particular La 94 as to be a 638 out award for making his charge 2d So jury verdict an on Bourgeois tainted In the jury to 97 376 p 4 La appellate the La comi must suggestion 634 So 2d 466 488 13 2 App 98 a a 5th Cir 706 So 2d exercise great restraint that the instructions Belle Pass Terminal Inc v Jolin Inc writ denied were so 92 1544 94 0906 La 1094 case the jury instructions that fault may be assessed damages v 1029 writ denied 97 2865 prejudicial In the instant pointed was that the give the precise instructions submitted by either party 1st Cir 3 1194 App 17 6 In 1792 art LaFrance case 701 So 2d 1026 oveliuming erroneous not agree court give instructions which properly reflect the law Fmiher the law is clear that before First I do the trial give instructions which properly reflect the law applicable in light of the facts of the 15 10 Exxon instructions misled the jury such that the jury verdict applicable in the but opinion reversing s can only come against from a given by the trial any person but judge correctly compensation party to the action There is no or an evidence in the record that this returned verdict a eight percent Accordingly the issue legally fault and Further jury at longer party to the action eighty Exxon with ten no its III entirety s decision to and in free analyzed to find Exxon ten percent on the to tank ten similar Dr Parks as jet fuel and directly uses from LOFU Rhodia without any intermediate storage few months of data from LOFU and spike Finishing on the morning of the accident spent sulfuric acid as saw several According was transferred from evidenced by the spike in testimony and to on ten testimony had been closed unexplained additional fault for the at morning of the accident and the film of light hydrocarbon the top of the acid in tank Though the a treats substances such hydrocarbon entered the pipeline and Exxon to Rhodia with the temperature primarily pipeline system to temperature prior to Dr Parks novo reasonable factual basis in the a in the reactive process sends spent sulfuric acid Dr Parks stated that he de applying the manifest hydrocarbons spikes a Plaintiffs expert Dr Parks testified that the Light Oil exclusive to evidence in the record that these at Exxon which an percent of fault accurately reflect the law applicable Unit LOFU through In fact the jury in its determination of fault I find that the record reviewing issue a Exxon inappropriate support the jury to prejudiced wrong standard I find that there is clearly accident only assessed posed by the jury and there is review of the record is record was no because the jury instructions instructions misled the error instruction Rhodia who finding at correct was called into question because the pipeline by Rhodia the night prior uninvestigated spike in to the accident temperature Dr following a Parks gave support his theory that free hydrocarbon contaminated the spent sulfuric acid in tank ten Dr Parks stated Exxon acknowledged hydrocarbon traveled with the spent sulfuric acid permissible however there was no material through the some pipeline soluble which was safety data sheet for LOFU and the material did or not safety data sheet referencing indicate the type of its reactive status Exxon and Rhodia time in which asserted that a Also were the hydrocarbon Dr Parks exposed to to the accident a opined a day there was issue trans felTed to that Exxon s at sent Finally a gap in Dr Parks foreign hydrocarbons Rhodia Based on all acid contaminated with free actions Adams would not have been fumes my review of the record reasonable factual basis to reaction that led manifestly were Rhodia and but for Exxon Accordingly from with Rhodia with the spent sulfuric acid could have entered the process couple of weeks prior to was sent to Dr Parks stated that due to the fact that the tanks at from Exxon had entered the pipeline and hydrocarbons that only tested approximately twice impurities of this evidence spent sulfuric acid transported to Adams elToneous in support his opinion injury occulTed and assessing Dr as presented the jury to how the chemical I do not find that the Exxon with ten Therefore I respectfully dissent from the majority Parks s jury percent of fault in this opinion was case
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
