RONALD ANDERSON, MELINDA CLEMONS, CHAD WUNSTELL, CONNIE WUNSTELL, AND ALBERT RAGAS Vs. TENNECO OIL COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RONALD ANDERSON, MELINDA CLEMONS, CHAD WUNSTELL, CONNIE WUNSTELL, AND ALBERT RAGAS * NO. 2001-CA-0295 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT VERSUS * STATE OF LOUISIANA TENNECO OIL COMPANY * * ******* CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH: CLARK FONTAINE, JR., DONALD J. ANDERSON AND KERRI WALTMAN ANDERSON NO. 2001-CA-0296 VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, MINERAL RESOURCES OFFICE AND CONSERVATION OFFICE APPEAL FROM PLAQUEMINES 25TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NOS. 40-596 C/W 40-972, DIVISION “A” Honorable Luke Petrovich, Judge Pro Tempore ****** Charles R. Jones Judge ****** (Court composed of Judge Charles R. Jones, Judge Terri F. Love, and Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr.) ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING TOBIAS, J. CONCURS Terry A. Bell TERRY A. BELL, BELL LAW FIRM 9418 Belle Chasse Highway Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037 COUNSEL FOR RONALD ANDERSON, MELINDA RENE CLEMONS, CHAD WUNSTELL, CONNIE WUNSTELL AND ALBERT RAGAS Philip F. Cossich, Jr. Darren D. Sumich COSSICH, SUMICH & PARSIOLA, L.L.C. 8056 Highway 23, Suite 200 P.O. Box 400 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 COUNSEL FOR CLARK FOINTAINE, JR., DONALD J. ANDERSON AND KERRI WALTMAN ANDERSON Gustave A. Manthey, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Louisisana Department of Justice Litigation Division 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1725 Baton Rouge, LA 70130 -andRichard P. Ieyoub Attorney General James C. Bates Special Assistant Attorney General STRAIN, DENNIS, MAYHALL & BATES 318 St. Charles Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED The Application for Rehearing filed by the State of Louisiana through the Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter “State”) is granted for the sole purpose of clarifying our previous decision. The State argues that general maritime law was the applicable law in this case citing Fox v. Southern Scrap Export Co., Ltd., 618 So.2d 844, 846 (La. 1993), which states that “[a] tort action falls within admiralty or maritime jurisdiction if the tort occurred in navigable waters and had a significant relationship to a traditional maritime activity.” We have reviewed this case, but do not find that it overrules Adams v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 589 So.2d 1219 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/14/91). Adams states that “[m]aritime tort cases apply the general maritime law, not state tort law, unless there are significant state policy considerations involved.” Id. at p. 1222. Clearly, there are significant state policy considerations involved in the regulation of navigable waters in which the State encourages commercial use of said waters. Thus, we hereby affirm our previous judgment.
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.
