Products Liability

Deepwater Horizon Update: Blowout Preventer Malfunction Discovered

April 11, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The U.S. Department of Interior recently released a report showing the results of a federal investigation of the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer (BOP). The Department of Interior hired a team of forensic experts to salvage the BOP from the gulf floor and to study the cause of its malfunction. According to the report, the BOP failed to close properly when a drill pipe buckled inside the device.

The report suggests that Cameron International, the company that built the Deepwater Horizon BOP, failed to design the BOP to handle extreme emergency situations. Cameron claims that they built the BOP pipe in accordance with industry standards.

Cameron’s compliance with industry standards may not insulate the contractor from liability. Government regulations only establish a minimum duty of care. In the past, courts have been reluctant to allow corporations to assert compliance with industry standards as a defense to products liability claims. For example, in a case involving asbestos and the Louisiana Products Liability Act, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit held that “mere compliance with federal standards or any other safety standards without more is not prima facie proof that a product is not dangerous or is no longer dangerous.” Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 726 So. 2d 996 (La. App. 4 Cir 10/21/98). Similarly, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Williamson v. Mazda, companies still have a duty to take necessary safety precautions in designing and constructing products, regardless of minimum government safety regulations.

The Department of Interior’s findings could dramatically alter the allocation of liability among the responsible parties in the spill. The study’s results could affect the distribution of civil penalties between BP and its contractors. Furthermore, the findings may also shift the focus of the federal government’s ongoing criminal investigation into whether the parties’ willfully violated environmental and maritime laws.

Oil and gas companies rely on BOPs as the last resort in stopping uncontrollable wells. The report suggests that the Deepwater Horizon rig’s BOP failure may not be an isolated incident, leaving open the possibility that all BOPs may similarly malfunction in the event of a well blowout. According to The Times-Picayune, members of Congress have called for a study of all current BOPs in operating gulf wells.

Williamson v. Mazda –Recent Supreme Court Seatbelt Holding Opens New Doors for Products Liability Plaintiffs

April 4, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

In Williamson v. Mazda, the Supreme Court ruled that a deceased woman’s relatives could sue her vehicle’s manufacturer for failing to install lap-and-shoulder belts, even though the manufacturer had complied with all relevant federal safety regulations. The decedent, Mrs. Williamson, was killed while riding in the backseat of a Mazda minivan and wearing a lap belt, the only available seatbelt in the backseat. The other passengers with lap-and-shoulder belts survived the accident.

In the case, Mazda raised its compliance with all federal safety regulations as a defense. The Supreme Court ruled that federal safety regulations do not preempt state law products liability claims. Rejecting Mazda’s defense, the Court reasoned that an automaker still has a duty to take safety precautions in designing and constructing vehicles

In Louisiana, the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) applies to all products liability claims made after September 1, 1988. To recover under the LPLA, a plaintiff must sue a company that meets the LPLA’s statutory definition of a “manufacturer.” The plaintiff must also prove that a product’s defective condition was the actual or proximate cause of his injury and that the product was unreasonably dangerous. Additionally, the plaintiff must prove that the product was used in its reasonably anticipated use.

EPA’s Cost-Cutting Boiler Regulations Pose Obstacles to Toxic Tort Litigants

March 28, 2011 | by Broussard, David & Moroux

The Environmental Protection Agency recently scaled back its environmental rules for incinerators and boilers. Under the new regulations, companies using industrial boilers and incinerators will now spend less to prevent air pollution. According to The New York Times, companies operating large boilers that burn renewable fuels would not be required to install certain technologies and only maintenance would be required for smaller boilers. These revamped regulations are designed to promote job growth.

The EPA claims that these new regulations will sufficiently regulate corporations and also prevent air pollution. These new rules are expected to cut companies’ costs by $1.8 billion each year. Unfortunately, a less regulated industry will result in less cautious behavior across the industry. These relaxed regulations also present obstacles to toxic tort litigants in the future.

Because statutory and administrative controls on toxic substances play a role in toxic tort cases, these new lenient regulations present new challenges in toxic tort litigation. A toxic tort is an injury caused by a toxic substance that poses an immediate or future unreasonable risk. Typically, toxic tort injuries are not immediately noticeable and have a long latency period. Industry boilers and incinerators are commonly used by refineries, chemical plants, hospitals and churches to generate steam and hot water for heat and electricity. They are also the second-largest source of toxic mercury emissions in the United States. Even at low levels, toxic mercury emissions may eventually cause serious damage to the brain and senses.