In Re: 1993 Exxon, et al, No. 08-30821 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 24, 2009 No. 08-30821 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk In Re: 1993 EXXON COKER FIRE. ******************** ANDRE AARON; WENDELL AARON; BRENDA ABRAMS; MARTHA ADCOCK; DOROTHY D. ADDISON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ******************** AYANNA ABADIE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ******************** ADLEAN MCALOPE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana No. 3:93-MD-2 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After an explosion at a plant owned and operated by Exxon Mobil Corporation ( Exxon Mobil ), residents living in the area sued, claiming that the company was strictly liable for the accident. After a bench trial, the district court decided that the faulty piping in the plant did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiffs, none of whom was killed or injured by the blast. We have reviewed the briefs and have heard the arguments of counsel. We have consulted pertinent parts of the record and have researched the applicable law. The district court accurately employed the proper test and committed no error, much less any clear error, in finding no unreasonable risk of harm. More- * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 2 over, the court did not abuse its discretion in any evidentiary ruling. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its comprehensive and persuasive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated July 18, 2008. 3
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.
