Products Liability

Federal Government Agrees to Settlement with Gulf-Polluting ATP Infrastructure Partners, LP

November 7, 2014 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Operating in violation of both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), ATP Infrastructure Partners LP (ATP-IP) has agreed to pay a $1 million civil penalty to settle a federal lawsuit over illegal discharges of oil and chemicals from an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico.

The lawsuit, instituted by the United States, was resolved by way of joint judicial enforcement action involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and the Justice Department.

In its complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the United States alleged that ATP-IP “violated Section 311(b)(3) of the CWA when oil and other pollutants were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico from the ATP Innovator.” Violation of this provision in the CWA opened up ATP-IP to possible civil penalties. The United States also urged that ATP-IP was liable for injunctive relief under OCSLA, “as the owner of the ATP Innovator … [for] hidden piping configuration [that] was being used to inject a chemical dispersant into the facility’s wastewater discharge outfall pipe to mask excess amounts of oil being discharged into the ocean.”

Products Liability in Louisiana under the LPLA

October 31, 2014 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

As Halloween approaches, I’m reminded of a story I was told growing up–a story that has spread like wildfire and survived the ages. It’s the story of a young child, happily trick-or-treating in his neighborhood and too fixated on his chocolate, sugary boon to care about any potential for harm. As the young child explores his neighborhood, bouncing from home-to-home, he approaches one residence that has opted to hand over candied apples to its trick-or-treaters instead of candy. The young child approaches the home, receives his candied apple in exchange for his promise not to “trick” and then scampers off to his next target home. Later that night, inspecting his bounty, the young child discovers a razor blade in his candied apple–a razor blade that, had he bitten down on it, would’ve caused him serious injury. Those of you reading this are tempted to relegate this story to “urban legend” status, a story designed to scare children into safer Halloween habits. However, I instead encourage you to think about this scenario as a basic, yet well-recognized example, of Products Liability law.

The area of tort law known as Products Liability deals with rights, duties, obligations, and standards associated with the distribution and safety of products. That is, manufacturers are liable for the personal injury or other damage caused by their defective product. Intuitive as it may sound, this was not always the case. Before Louisiana extended this right to injured plaintiffs–the right to seek remuneration for personal injuries caused by defective products–courts often denied injured plaintiffs’ claims due to the legal doctrine of “privity of contract.” Under this doctrine, courts conceived products liability to be a contractual matter, and recovery against the seller was rooted in contractual remedies. Accordingly, this “privity” required that the defendant-manufacturer be a party to the contract of sale in order to provide remedies outside of the law of contracts. Since manufacturers rarely sell their products directly to customers, but instead sell them to retailers who distribute them to the public, manufacturers were often shielded from liability.

Gradually, the conception that products liability was restricted to the realm of contracts started to erode. For example, the Restatement of Torts adopted a provision “providing limited strict liability of the manufacturer of a product for the personal injury damages caused by a defect in the product.” This approach to products liability was later adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Weber v. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. of NY, 250 So. 2d 754 (La. 1971), which provided for manufacturers’ strict liability in tort for their defective/injurious products.

Broussard, David & Moroux Holds Grand Opening for New Location in Downtown Lafayette

October 15, 2014 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

LAFAYETTE – Broussard, David & Moroux Law Firm held a grand opening ceremony on Wednesday, October 15th, in honor of their recent move to a new location. Their new offices are located in the heart of downtown Lafayette on the corner of Jefferson Street and Vermilion Street in the historic Moss Building (557 Jefferson Street).

A crowd gathered to help Fr. Hampton Davis bless the new building. A ribbon cutting ceremony and reception followed in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce Business After Hours event. Guests were able to tour the newly renovated building and learn about the history of its presence in downtown Lafayette.

For the last 200 years, the site of the historic “Moss Building” was the epicenter of local activity in a growing Lafayette. Today, the Moss Building plays an important role, once again, as downtown Lafayette enjoys a renewed vitality. Blake David, partner at the law firm, says that “Broussard, David & Moroux was eager to invest in an opportunity to restore one of Lafayette’s landmarks and is committed to enhancing the downtown community so that it is a great place to live, work and play.”

BP’s “Gross Negligence” Under the Clean Water Act: A Deeper Look

September 19, 2014 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Almost two weeks have passed since Judge Carl Barbier handed down his blistering opinion apportioning a majority of the fault to BP for the 2010 Gulf oil spill. As a follow-up to last week’s article, which detailed Judge Barbier’s ruling, we aim to dig deeper: Judge Barbier found that BP’s “gross” negligence opens them up to enhanced civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA). But what does this mean for BP? Was this the right result?

The Ruling

The thrust of Judge Barbier’s opinion was to apportion fault, or responsibility, for the harrowing 87-day oil spill which followed Deepwater Horizon’s explosion. As we noted in last week’s article, Judge Barbier found BP 67 percent at fault for the spill and reserved only 30 percent and 3 percent for Transocean and Halliburton, respectively. Importantly, and the subject of this week’s in-depth look at his ruling, Judge Barbier found that BP’s “gross negligence” and “willful misconduct” opens them up to enhanced civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. Under the CWA, where a “person” causes a hazardous oil spill in navigable waters of the United States, and where this spill is the “result of gross negligence or willful misconduct… the person shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $100,000, and not more than $3,000 per barrel of oil or unit of reportable quantity of hazardous substance discharged.” 33 U.S.C. §1321(b)(7)(D). As Judge Barbier notes, this enhanced penalty provision does not require any “specific level of corporate management,” but instead opens up enhanced penalties to entities who violate this provision of the Clean Water Act whether it’s the result of systemic, gross negligence or not.

Toy Hazards Remain in the United States

December 3, 2013 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

While recalls for toys that contain hazards to children are down this year, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group insists that consumers should be aware of potential dangers that sit on toy shelves when shopping for Christmas this year. Hazards that could be harmful to children include toys with too much lead, excessive noise, and small parts that are could lead to choking. For example, the group tested the lead content in a Captain America toy and found it to contain twenty-nine times the legal amount of lead that is allowed in the product.

Christmas shoppers probably do not spend a whole lot of time analyzing the potential safety hazards that are contained in the toys that they buy for children. However, these dangers are very real and can potentially lead to grievous injury or even death. The manufacturers and distributors of these products have a responsibility to ensure that their products are safe and are free of any hazards that can pose a danger to the public. For example, toy manufacturers should keep the lead content in their products below the legal limit because overexposure to lead can be extremely dangerous to young children because it can impair their neurological and physical development. If a manufacturer or distributor has not taken the necessary precautions to ensure that their products are safe for use, they may be liable for any damages that may result from the defective product. If you or a loved one has suffered injuries as a result of a defective product, you should immediately consult a skilled personal injury attorney who will fight to protect your rights.

$5.1 Million Verdict Awarded to Cow Island Residents

August 23, 2013 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

A Vermillion Parish jury awarded $5.1 million to Cow Island residents to help pay for the cleanup of soil and groundwater heavily contaminated with arsenic. The case arose after a Cow Island resident was diagnosed with cancer, making him the second in his rectory to be diagnosed with the deadly disease. A quick test of the water wells in the area found a level of arsenic that grossly exceeded the maximum levels allowed in drinking water. Richard Broussard, an attorney from Broussard, David & Moroux and one of the lead attorneys in this case, stated that the contamination was a result of cattle dipping vats being poured on the ground for decades.

New Orleans Accident: Workers injured in scaffold collapse

August 15, 2013 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Two construction workers suffered injuries when the scaffolding they were working on at the Drury Inn on Poydras Street collapsed, trapping both under the wreckage until the fire department arrived. Both men had just exited the structure when the collapse occurred, knocking one worker “twenty yards over” when a board slid off the structure and struck the man. Police blocked off the surrounding area until an inspector ensured that the scaffolding was secured. Both men were transported to the hospital with injuries, although none critical or fatal.

Toyota Motors Agrees to $1.1 billion settlement

January 15, 2013 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Toyota will pay $1.1 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by millions of car owners. In the suit, car owners alleged they suffered economic loss from negative publicity associated with reports of sudden unintended acceleration in their Toyota and Lexus vehicles.

This lawsuit is one of the first class action suits of its kind because the class did not pursue personal injury or products liability claims. This settlement agreement will affect 16 million owners of Toyota and Lexus cars. The news of Toyota’s willingness to pay this large settlement on economic claims alone may also be a good predictor of Toyota’s intent to settle any personal injury or products liability claims in the future.

Before joining a class action lawsuit, it is important to consider several factors relating to your participation in the suit. A primary benefit of class action litigation is that it can reduce litigation expenses for the individual. In a class action lawsuit, several people share the costs of litigation. Bringing a class action lawsuit can also be a more efficient use of court resources and can ease proof of a defendant’s liability.

Fungal Meningitis Outbreak Linked to Tainted Steroid Injections

November 20, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

More than 300 recipients of tainted steroid injections have been diagnosed with fungal meningitis across the United States. Officials discovered black mold in the steroids in September. No cases have been reported in Louisiana.

In the last two months, these contaminated steroid injections have caused 24 deaths in the United States. Because doctors commonly insert steroid injections into the spine, doctors warn that meningitis can silently creep into a healthy patient’s system without causing the immune system to react defensively. The spine also gives the fungus direct access to the brain.

Doctors ceased administering the tainted shots. However, doctors recommend that all patients who have recently received steroid injections closely monitor their symptoms. If detected early, fungal meningitis is highly treatable.

Meningitis symptoms include headache, fever, stiff neck, swelling, nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light and hallucinations. If you have experienced any of these symptoms after receiving steroid injections, you should seek medical attention immediately.

Lawmakers Call on FDA to Regulate Energy Drinks

November 6, 2012 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

Two U.S. senators asked the Food and Drug Administration to eliminate regulatory loopholes that permit energy-drink manufacturers to sell drinks without disclosing high levels of caffeine last week.

This request follows after the agency released findings from its investigation into five deaths that were allegedly linked to the consumption of Monster energy drinks. Under current FDA regulations, the makers of energy drinks are not required to disclose ingredients on the label because they are considered natural food products.

Consumer reports suggest many energy drinks contain higher levels of caffeine than their packaging indicates or do not even list caffeine as an ingredient. Studies reveal that one energy drink can contain four to five times more caffeine than the average soda.