Premises Liability

More Drilling May Equal More Injuries

January 9, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Almost two years after the anniversary of the BP Oil Spill, reports indicate that deep gulf drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is flourishing once again, with oil companies drilling deeper than ever before. Oil companies believe that deep fields in the Gulf of Mexico may contain enough oil to meet the United States’ energy needs for almost two years.

Although deep gulf drilling poses economic benefits, widespread deep gulf drilling also raises concerns about offshore worker safety. As seen in the aftermath of the BP Oil Spill, deep gulf drilling poses even greater safety risks for offshore workers and the environment. Oil companies already have a legal responsibility to maintain safe working conditions for their workers. However, the deeper the drilling, the greater the need for oil companies to maintain adequate safety equipment and procedures.

In the event of an offshore accident, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) protects certain maritime workers who sustain injuries on the job. The statute is a workers’ compensation scheme that provides financial assistance to an injured offshore worker for his wages, reasonable medical expenses and vocational rehabilitation. The statute also protects injured workers from unjust termination or retaliation.

2 Louisiana Workers Killed in Work Injury Accidents

October 31, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Two Louisiana workers suffered fatal work-related injuries this month. In Houma, a Gulf Island Fabrication worker was killed when a cable at his work site loosened in the process of moving a 700-pound metal sheet piling. Also, a R&R Construction contractor was electrocuted and killed while working on a chlor-alkali unit.

These two tragic accidents highlight the critical need for employers to maintain safe working environments for workers, especially in the construction industry. The construction industry remains one of the most dangerous industries for workers, and all too often many of these hazards stem from employer negligence.

Employers are legally required to provide a reasonably safe work environment and to warn workers of all hazards associated with their work. If an employer fails to meet these requirements and this failure causes an employee’s injury, the employer may be held legally responsible for the injury. Examples of employer negligence include an employer’s failure to implement adequate safety procedures and an employer’s failure to properly train employees. An employer may also be held liable if it knowingly subjects its employees to dangerous working conditions.

Lake Charles Refinery Crackdown

October 10, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed two felony charges in a bill of information in a Lafayette federal district court against Pelican Refining Company for knowingly violating its permit issued by the Clean Air Act at its refinery located in Lake Charles.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office alleges that from 2005 to 2007, the company knowingly released pollutants into the environment. According to the DOJ, a federal investigation revealed the refinery’s substandard operating conditions, including the intentional release of hydrogen sulfide into the air, the storage of crude oil in tanks in need of repair and the use of plastic children’s swimming pools to control petroleum leaks.

The Clean Air Act is a federal statute designed to prevent and control environmental contamination through the creation of emissions standards, regulations and permit requirements. With Louisiana being home to more than 30 operating refineries, environmental contamination is a serious concern in the state.

Pearl River Toxic Water Exposure?

August 29, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

A recent untreated wastewater spill in the Pearl River killed thousands of fish. State officials are not certain how the contamination will impact the surrounding community’s drinking water; however, some officials are optimistic that the damage will not affect citizens because the Pearl River is not a source of drinking water for neighboring communities.

Nevertheless, the spill highlights the need to ensure corporations take adequate safety precautions when handling hazardous toxins in our communities. Groundwater and soil contamination pose serious long-term health consequences in affected communities. The exposure of even a small amount of a toxin can lead to cancer, neurological disorders, liver and kidney damage, immune system problems, and birth defects.

New Iberia Plant Explosion and Absolute Liability

June 28, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

An explosion occurred from a chemical fire at a Multi-Chem Corp. chemical plant in New Iberia last week, causing neighboring residents to evacuate their homes. Police reported no injuries from the explosion or its aftermath. The explosion occurred in a facility that blends chemicals for oil field operations. The accident highlights the importance of safety and prudence by Louisiana proprietors who participate in ultrahazardous activities.

Louisiana law imposes absolute liability on individuals and corporations engaging in ultrahazardous activities. Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 holds a proprietor responsible for damage without regard to his knowledge or his exercise of reasonable care if the damage is caused by an ultrahazardous activity. The Code strictly limits the definition of an ultrahazardous activity to pile driving and blasting with explosives.

Under a theory of absolute liability, the injured party can recover by simply proving damages and causation, regardless of whether the proprietor was actually negligent. Therefore, absolute liability permits liability without negligence. Louisiana courts often attach absolute liability to the storage of toxic gas and crop dusting with airplanes.

Wal-Mart Law Suit Update

April 18, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The Supreme Court recently heard Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the largest class action lawsuit in American history. Over 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees filed a systemic class-action sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging that they were part of a system of discrimination where they received lower wages than their male counterparts and were passed over for promotions in favor of male employees. The women seek backpay and punitive damages as well as a change in Wal-Mart’s employment practices. The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether Wal-Mart can still receive a fair trial.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines systemic discrimination as a form of intentional discrimination that occurs when employers have a pattern, practice or policy that broadly affects an industry, profession, company or geographic area. Wal-Mart contends that it is impossible for its employees to allege a case of systemic discrimination based on its company employment statistics. They claim that the alleged pay discrepancies only exist as a result of employee merit and not a discriminatory policy.

A class action lawsuit is a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of many people who have been harmed by the same defendant in a similar way. In order for a class to become certified, one injured plaintiff must serve as a class representative, and the class representative must demonstrate that a legal claim exists against the defendant on behalf of all of the plaintiffs in the class. A judge may deny certification if the class is too large or if the series of harms and claims are too diverse.

In Dukes, the primary issue is whether Wal-Mart’s right to due process is at risk in defending itself against 1.5 million employees. If the Court upholds the certification, the Court will set a new precedent for class action litigation. A decision for the plaintiffs may increase the propensity of large class-action lawsuits against corporations in the future.

Many corporations, including Microsoft, General Electric and Costco, filed amicus briefs in support of Wal-Mart. These large corporations fear that a judgment for the employees will seriously damage their business because the ruling would authorize larger class-action awards and settlements in the future. According to reports of the oral argument, a majority of the Justices were sympathetic to Wal-Mart’s position and appeared skeptical that the large corporation could still receive a fair trial. A decision on the case is expected in late June.