Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 October 2015
• Docket Number: 15–325.,Nos. 15–324,s. 15–324
• Citation: Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 175 So.3d 1180 (La. App. 2015)
• Parties: Craig Steven ARABIE, et al. v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION. Randall A. Biddy, et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

175 So.3d 1180

Craig Steven ARABIE, et al.

v.CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION.

Randall A. Biddy, et al.

v.Citgo Petroleum Corporation.

Nos. 15–324

15–325.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 7, 2015.

Wells T. Watson, Roger G. Burgess, Jake D. Buford, Baggett, McCall, Burgess, Watson & Gaughan Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellees, Craig Steven Arabie, et al.

Richard E. Wilson, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellees, Craig Steven Arabie, et al.

Robert E. Landry, Scofield, Gerard, Pohorelsky, Gallaugher & Landry, Lake Charles, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, CITGO Petroleum Corporation.

Craig Isenberg, Michelle M. Rutherford, Zachary I. Rosenberg, Barasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, CITGO Petroleum Corporation.

Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, JAMES T. GENOVESE and JOHN E. CONERY, Judges.

Opinion

COOKS, Judge.

The plaintiffs in these two consolidated appeals are persons asserting injuries caused from a major oil and wastewater spill from Defendant's refinery. Liability for the cause of the spill is admitted by Defendant, but the amount of damages awarded to the fifteen named plaintiffs in this case is contested on appeal. For the following reasons, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in its awards, and we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The claims in this consolidated appeal arise from an oil and wastewater spill that occurred on June 19, 2006, at Defendant, CITGO Petroleum Corporation's Calcasieu Parish refinery. As a consequence of a severe storm, the stormwater drainage and storage system (including the wastewater treatment facility) at CITGO's refinery was filled beyond available capacity and overflowed, resulting in a major oil spill. Over 21 million gallons of waste, including 17 million gallons of contaminated wastewater and 4.2 million gallons of slop oil escaped from the two existing wastewater storage tanks into an area around the tanks which was surrounded by levees or dikes. The oil spill, which was described by experts as “major” and “catastrophic,” eventually contaminated over 100 miles of shoreline along the Calcasieu River and required several months to clean up.

A previous trial on the oil and wastewater spill was held with a different set of plaintiffs, who were employed by Ron Williams Construction, and working at the Calcasieu Refinery. The current plaintiffs in these consolidated appeals also were employees of Ron Williams Construction and worked at CITGO's Calcasieu Refinery. The trial with the first set of plaintiffs resulted in varying damage awards to the named plaintiffs, which amounts were the subject of an appeal to this court in Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 10–244 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/27/10), 49 So.3d 529. This court affirmed the district court's ruling that plaintiffs had proved their injuries were caused by CITGO's previously admitted negligence in allowing the spill. The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the courts below erred as to the allocation of fault, in awarding damages for fear of future injury and in awarding punitive damages. Pertinent to this appeal, the supreme court held plaintiffs proved their damages were caused by the exposure to toxic chemicals contained in the oil spill and plaintiffs were entitled to damages for fear of contracting cancer. Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 10–2605 (La.3/13/12), 89 So.3d 307. (For ease of reference, we will refer to the prior case as Arabie 1. ) The supreme court reversed the trial court's award of $30,000.00 in punitive damages to each plaintiff.

The trial court in this case noted exposure was already established by this court's and the supreme court's finding in Arabie 1. CITGO also did not dispute that Plaintiffs suffered irritant symptoms from working around the area where the spill occurred while the oil was still present. Thus, the issues determined at trial were: (1) whether CITGO's actions were the proximate cause of each plaintiff's injuries, and (2) the extent of each plaintiff's damages, if any.

The trial court found, taking the evidence as a whole, Plaintiffs established that more probably than not, the admitted negligence of CITGO in allowing the spill was a cause-in-fact of their various injuries. In assessing damages, the trial court noted despite complaints to management, the Plaintiffs were reassured there was no risk and advised the slop oil was not dangerous. The trial court found this assurance from CITGO encouraged the plaintiffs to not seek initial medical evaluations for the first few months and exacerbated the symptoms they endured. The following damage awards were rendered by the trial court:

Randall Biddy

Medical Expenses	$ 857.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$20,500.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$36,357.00

Tony Buckelew

Medical Expenses	$ 502.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$14,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$29,502.00

Allen Fontenot

Medical Expenses	$ 2,402.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$20,500.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$15,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$42,902.00

Christopher Gass

Medical Expenses	$ 660.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$10,250.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$25,910.00

Michael Greer

Medical Expenses	$ 1,027.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$17,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$33,027.00

Joshua Holland

Medical Expenses	$ 1,450.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$13,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$15,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$34,450.00

Yates LeBlanc

Medical Expenses	$ 660.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$10,000.00
	TOTAL	$10,660.00

Dale Louvierre

Medical Expenses	$ 810.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$17,500.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$15,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$38,310.00

Dustin Miller

Medical Expenses	$ 930.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$18,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$33,930.00

Morgan Olivier

Medical Expenses	$ 3,513.04
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$20,500.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$39,013.04

Darren Romero

Medical Expenses	$ 1,645.94
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$16,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$32,645.94

Willard Romero

Medical Expenses	$ 660.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$15,500.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$31,160.00

Joshua Singer

Medical Expenses	$ 610.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$13,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 2,500.00
	TOTAL	$26,110.00

Dustin Smith

Medical Expenses	$ 671.00
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$16,500.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$32,171.00

Larry Stewart

Medical Expenses	$ 2,027.22
	General Damages—Pain and Suffering	$30,000.00
	General Damages—Fear of Developing Disease	$10,000.00
	General Damages—Loss of Enjoyment of Life	$ 5,000.00
	TOTAL	$47,027.22

All court costs were assessed to CITGO. A final judgment was signed on October 9, 2014. CITGO appealed the judgment solely on the grounds that the damages awarded were excessive and a stark departure from the awards handed out in Arabie 1. CITGO assigned the following assignments of error:

1. The district court abused its discretion in awarding more than $31,000 per plaintiff in general damages for minimal and intermittent health complaints which were, on average, three times more than the same district court awarded to what it described as a similar plaintiff group—workers at the same location with the same exposures, and the same basic health complaints.

2. The district court erred in awarding Mr. Stewart $10,000 for fear of developing a future disease in the absence of any evidence that he had such fears.

ANALYSIS

This court in Anthony v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC, 13–236, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/21/14), 146 So.3d 235, 251, writ denied, 14–2102 (La.11/26/14), 153 So.3d 425, recently set forth the appellate standard of review for general damage awards:

In awarding general damages, it is well settled the trier of fact is afforded great discretion. La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1 ; Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114, 114 S.Ct. 1059, 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). An appellate court may only disturb a general damages award after an articulated examination of the facts discloses a clear abuse of discretion. Miller v. LAMMICO, 07–1352 (La.1/16/08), 973 So.2d 693. While reasonable persons frequently can disagree with the quantum of general damages, the monetary award must have a reasonable relationship to the elements of proven damages. Only after a determination that the trier of fact has abused its “much discretion” is a resort to prior awards appropriate, and then only for the purpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion. Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976).

Before addressing the aspects of the awards to each plaintiff it finds objectionable, CITGO makes several general arguments concerning the trial court's awards.

CITGO contends the trial court's award of damages for loss of enjoyment of life (which were made to all but one plaintiff) were duplicative to the awards made for pain and...