Price v. Martin
79 So. 3d 960, 2011 La. LEXIS 2889, 2011 WL 6034519 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a mass tort case, class certification is improper where the alleged harm spans many decades, involves multiple defendants operating under different legal standards, and has numerous potential alternative causes, because individual questions of causation and liability will predominate over any common issues.
Facts:
- From 1940 to the present, the Dura-Wood Treating Company facility in Alexandria, Louisiana, engaged in the production of creosote-treated railroad ties.
- During this period, the facility was owned and operated by different companies, including Koppers Company, Inc. (now Beazer East, Inc.) and later Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, L.P. (Martin).
- Operations at the facility allegedly resulted in the discharge of hazardous chemicals, including creosote, hexachlorobenzene, and pentachlorophenol, into the surrounding environment via spills, runoff, and wastewater disposal in a canal and ponds.
- The facility's operations and the specific chemicals used changed over time; for example, the use of pentachlorophenol did not begin until 1964, and the practice of teepee burning waste wood ceased around 1982.
- Neighboring residents were allegedly allowed to enter the facility and take trimmings from treated wood, which they used for cooking and heating.
- The area surrounding the facility contains numerous other potential sources for the alleged contaminants (PAHs and dioxins), including highway emissions, barrel burning, diesel trucks and trains, fireplaces, and cigarette smoke.
Procedural Posture:
- Five individuals (Plaintiffs) filed a class action petition for damages against Roy O. Martin Lumber Company (Martin) and Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer) in the Twenty-third Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension.
- Following a judgment on exceptions of improper venue, the case was transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides.
- Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Certification of Class Action.
- The district court (trial court) granted the motion, certifying a class of property owners.
- Defendants, Martin and Beazer, appealed the certification to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal affirmed the district court’s judgment certifying the class.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to review the judgments of the lower courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed class of property owners allegedly harmed by emissions from a single facility meet the commonality, predominance, and superiority requirements for class certification under La. C.C.P. art. 591 when the alleged contamination occurred over a 66-year period involving different facility owners, changing legal standards, and numerous alternative sources for the contaminants?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Weimer
No. The proposed class fails to meet the requirements for certification because individual questions of breach, causation, and liability overwhelm any common issues, making a class action an improper and inefficient method for resolving the controversy. The plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality prerequisite because their claims do not depend upon a common contention capable of class-wide resolution. The issue of breach is not common, as it involves different conduct by different defendants at different times under different and evolving legal standards. Most critically, the issue of causation is highly individualized, as plaintiffs failed to offer significant proof that the contaminants on each property could be traced to the Dura-Wood facility rather than the myriad area-wide and property-specific alternative sources. Because commonality is not met, the more demanding predominance requirement also fails. Finally, the class action is not a superior method of adjudication due to inherent conflicts within the class (e.g., between past and present owners) and the fact that the case would inevitably degenerate into thousands of individual mini-trials on liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the bar for class certification in long-term environmental tort cases in Louisiana. By strictly applying the 'rigorous analysis' standard, the court reaffirmed its precedent from Ford and Brooks, requiring a 'common cause or disaster' for mass tort certification. The ruling clarifies that diffuse, long-term pollution from a single site with multiple owners and changing standards does not constitute a common cause, as individual inquiries into causation and liability predominate. This makes it much more difficult for plaintiffs to aggregate claims involving historical industrial pollution, likely forcing them to pursue individual actions or smaller, more cohesive group actions.
