Perkins v. Entergy Corp.
2001 WL 293112, 782 So. 2d 606 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish cause-in-fact in a negligence claim, plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's conduct was a "substantial factor" in bringing about the harm, and an appellate court may overturn a trial court's factual finding of causation if it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong, lacking a reasonable factual basis in the record.
Facts:
- On April 6, 1994, a static shield wire at the Exxon refinery in Baton Rouge, improperly held together by only one strand, broke due to a ten-knot wind and fell onto transmission wires below it.
- The initial breakage caused an electrical fault, which was cleared, but when Entergy personnel attempted to reclose the breaker to reenergize the line, the fault reinitiated and escalated to a full three-phase fault due to the failure of Gulf States Utilities Company's (GSU) automatic relay equipment.
- This 58-cycle, three-phase electrical fault caused a significant 47.5% voltage sag at the Air Liquide America Corporation (ALAC) facility near Plaquemine, leading the facility's major equipment, including air compressors, to automatically shut down as a protective measure.
- Plant manager Ray Hracek and employees Joseph Bujol and Don Perkins were summoned to the ALAC plant to assist in restarting the air compressors after the shutdown.
- During the restart process, an automatic control valve in the ALAC "letdown station," which regulated the differential pressure of oxygen pipelines, was discovered to be wide open when it should have been closed.
- While Hracek, Bujol, and Perkins were attempting to discover the source of the problem with the automatic valve and close a nearby manual block valve, a large oxygen flash fire occurred at the letdown station.
- Ray Hracek died of his injuries several days after the incident, and Joseph Bujol and Don Perkins sustained 90% third-degree burns and permanent disabilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Don Perkins, Joseph Bujol, their families, and Ray Hracek's surviving family members filed suit against Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU), and Louisiana Power and Light, Inc. (LP&L), among other defendants, in a state trial court.
- After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that ESI, LP&L, and GSU were negligent and a cause of the accident, assessing them 40% of the fault for the plaintiffs' injuries.
- The electric utility companies (defendants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal, sitting as a five-judge panel, reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in holding the electric utility companies liable because the plaintiffs had not proved factual or legal causation.
- The plaintiffs filed a writ application with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, assigning as error the court of appeal's application of a less stringent legal duty, its reversal of the factual causation finding, its finding of no legal causation, and its failure to allow reargument before a larger panel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the court of appeal err by reversing the trial court's finding of factual causation where the plaintiffs' evidence indicated only a possibility, rather than a probability, that the defendant's electrical disturbance was a substantial factor in causing an industrial oxygen flash fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Kimball, J.
No, the court of appeal did not err in reversing the trial court's finding of factual causation because the plaintiffs failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' conduct was a cause-in-fact of the flash fire. The court affirmed the court of appeal's application of the manifest error standard of review. While acknowledging that the electrical fault was an unusual event and that foreign particulate matter contributed to the fire, the court found insufficient objective evidence to directly link the power outage to the flash fire. The plaintiffs' theory, supported by their expert Roger Owens, was that the severe voltage sag caused excessive vibrations, dislodging metallic particles that then ignited the fire. However, Owens only testified to what "could" or "might" have occurred, not what "did" occur, and his testimony lacked objective support from the record. Contradicting this theory, employee testimonies indicated no unusual violence during the shutdown, vibration monitors on the compressors were not triggered, and the equipment was designed to shut down quickly to mitigate the impact of voltage sags. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must prove causation was "more likely than not," not merely "possible." Additionally, the court ruled that the constitutional right to reargument before a larger panel (La. Const. art. V, § 8(B)) does not apply when an appellate case is initially heard by a five-judge panel, as the parties were already afforded the opportunity to have five appellate judges hear their case.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
Yes, the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court's finding of factual causation because there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's decision, and an appellate court should not disturb reasonable factual findings based on conflicting expert testimony under the manifest error standard of review. Justice Johnson argued that the trial judge was presented with conflicting expert testimony regarding causation (Owens for plaintiffs, Brooks for defendants) and had the duty to evaluate credibility and make reasonable inferences. The trial judge's acceptance of the plaintiffs' expert's testimony—that the voltage sag probably caused severe turbulence and led to the introduction of debris, ultimately causing the accident—constituted a reasonable factual finding. Therefore, the court of appeal's reversal was erroneous under the well-settled "manifest error" standard, which mandates upholding trial court findings if they are reasonable, even if the appellate court would have weighed the evidence differently.
Dissenting - Knoll, J.
Yes, the court of appeal erred by denying the plaintiffs their constitutional right to reargument before a larger panel, and also by substituting its judgment for the trial court's factual findings on the merits. Justice Knoll asserted that Louisiana Constitution art. V, § 8(B) unequivocally mandates reargument before a panel of at least five judges when a district court judgment is modified or reversed and one appellate judge dissents, regardless of whether the initial appellate panel was three or five judges. This provision's intent is to provide a mandatory re-hearing by a differently configured, larger panel to ensure greater scrutiny of non-unanimous reversals of trial court judgments. On the merits of the causation issue, Justice Knoll found that the court of appeal conducted an impermissible de novo review and substituted its opinion for that of the trial court, disregarding the deference owed to the factfinder when expert testimony conflicts. The trial court's decision, based on the plaintiff's expert testimony and supporting evidence that the voltage sag more probably than not produced the abnormal pipeline conditions leading to the flash fire, was a permissible view of the evidence and thus not manifestly erroneous.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the demanding burden of proof for causation in negligence cases, particularly when multiple potential causes exist and the link to the defendant's specific conduct is indirect or speculative. It also highlights the tension between the appellate court's constitutional duty to review facts for manifest error and the significant deference owed to the trial court as the primary factfinder, especially regarding conflicting expert testimony. The majority's decision effectively raises the bar for plaintiffs to establish "cause-in-fact" beyond mere possibility, emphasizing the "more likely than not" standard. The dissent on the reargument issue underscores a nuanced interpretation of constitutional procedural rights in Louisiana appellate practice, suggesting potential future challenges regarding the composition of appellate panels.
