Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, In re
| Decision Date | 12 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-,No. 95-2098,No. 87-,86-,87-,95-2098 |
| Citation | 113 F.3d 444 |
| Parties | , 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,941, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 302 In re: PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION. Mabel BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("SEPTA"); National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"); and Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") v. UNITED STATES of America; Roy F. Weston, Inc.; and OH Materials Company; and General Electric Company; and The Budd Company; and Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and Monsanto Co.; Penn Central Corporation (D.C. Civilcv-02229). George Albert BURRELL; and Priscilla Etheridge Burrell, in their own right, and George Albert Burrell and Priscilla Etheridge Burrell, as parents and natural guardian of Amber Shardai Burrell, a minor, and George Albert Burrell, as parent and natural guardian of Andre Walker, a minor, and Priscilla Etheridge Burrell, as parent and natural guardian of Bobby George Albert Christian Burrell, a minor v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("SEPTA"); and National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") and Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") v. UNITED STATES of America; Monsanto Company; General Electric Company; The Budd Company; Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION (D.C. Civilcv-02235). K. Louise JONES, Administratrix of the Estate of Harvey N. Jones, Jr., deceased; and K. Louise Jones, as personal representative of Harvey N. Jones, Jr., and K. Louise Jones, in her own right v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("SEPTA"); National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"); Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") v. UNITED STATES of America; City of Philadelphia; Monsanto Company; General Electric Company; The Budd Company; and Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Penn Central Corporation (D.C. Civilcv-05277). James LAMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEPTA; Amtrak; and Conrail v. PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION; United Sta |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Joseph C. Kohn, Martin J. D'Urso (Argued) Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Arnold E. Cohen, Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, Philadelphia, PA, D. Bruce Hanes, D. Bruce Hanes & Associates, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.
Roger F. Cox, John J. Monsees, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee--Southern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
John W. Vardaman, Steven R. Kuney (Argued), Robert J. Shaughnessy, Philip A. Sechler, Stephen D. Sencer, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC, Stephen M. McManus, McCormick & Priore, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee--General Electric Company.
Robert A. Sutton, Deputy City Solicitor, Office of the City Solicitor, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee--The City of Philadelphia.
Jerome J. Shestack, Barry M. Klayman, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee--Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Thomas M. Goutman, Robert Toland, II, White & Williams, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee--Monsanto Company.
Before: BECKER, NYGAARD, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
This toxic tort case is before us for the third time. See In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829 (3d Cir.1990) ("Paoli I"); In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1190, 115 S.Ct. 1253, 131 L.Ed.2d 134 (1995) ("Paoli II"). The plaintiffs have lived for many years in the vicinity of the Paoli Railroad Yard ("Yard"), a railcar maintenance facility at which polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") were used in profusion for over a quarter-century. They sued the corporations that have maintained the Yard and sold the PCBs, seeking to recover damages for a variety of physical ailments and for property damage. Plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment entered after an unfavorable jury verdict on the claims that remained for trial in the wake of the previous appeals.
Plaintiffs present a plethora of appellate issues, several of which are significant enough to justify still another published opinion: whether the district court abused its discretion in its exclusion of evidence offered by the plaintiffs regarding heat-degraded PCBs, and whether the court gave erroneous jury instructions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy
...(3d Cir. 1990) ("Paoli I "); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. , 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) ("Paoli II "); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. , 113 F.3d 444 (3d Cir. 1997) ("Paoli III "). In those cases, despite ongoing cleanup efforts by the EPA, we said that the plaintiffs could move forward......
-
U.S. v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.
..." United States v. Universal Rehabilitation Services (PA), Inc., 205 F.3d 657, 665 (3d Cir.2000), quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 113 F.3d 444, 453 (3d Cir.1997) (internal quotations omitted). Abuse of discretion requires a showing of clear error, not inappropriateness. In my view......
-
Allison v Citgo Petroleum Corp., 5
...decide the same essential issues." In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Paoli R.R. Yard, 113 F.3d 444, 452-53 n.5 (3d Cir. 1997). In summary, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because it adopts an unauthorized and erroneous interpre......
-
Berwind Corp. v. Apfel
...A decisionmaker abuses his discretion when he makes a decision that is arbitrary or irrational. See In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 113 F.3d 444, 453 (3d Cir.1997). A reviewing court must determine whether the agency articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including ......