The opinion
RASHAUD BROWN * NO. 2021-C-0734
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
VALERO REFINING *
MERAUX, LLC FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NO. 21-0469, DIVISION “DIVISION D”
Honorable Darren M. Roy
******
Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott
******
(Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge
Nakisha Ervin-Knott)
Jacque R. Touzet
Jacque Touzet, Attorney at Law
900 Camp St., Floor 3
New Orleans, LA 70130
Raymond P. Ward
Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr.
Taylor E. Brett
Adams and Reese LLP
701 Poydras St., Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR
Lance V. Licciardi
Licciardi Law Office, L.L.C.
1019 W. Judge Perez Dr.
Chalmette, LA 70043
Michael C. Ginart, Jr.
Law Offices of Michael C. Ginart, Jr.
2114 Paris Rd.
Chalmette, LA 70043
4900347
David C. Jarrell
Law Offices of David C. Jarrell, A.P.L.C.
9101 W. St. Bernard Hwy.
Chalmette, LA 70043
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
WRIT GRANTED; NOVEMBER 15, 2021 JUDGMENT
REVERSED; AND JUDGMENT RENDERED
April 18, 2023
4900347
NEK
RML
SCJ
This matter is before the Court on remand from the Louisiana Supreme
Court. In a per curiam, the Louisiana Supreme Court ordered that this Court
reconsider its previous ruling in light of the decision in Spencer v. Valero Ref.
Meraux, L.L.C., 2022-00469, 2022-00539, 2022-00730 (La. 1/27/23), 356 So. 3d
936. For the following reasons, we grant the writ and reverse the district court’s
judgment.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
This case is one of many that arises from a refinery explosion. The
Louisiana Supreme Court explained the background to the underlying action as
follows:
On April 10, 2020, at approximately 12:45 a.m., an accident, fire, and
explosion (“the explosion”) occurred in the hydrocracker unit at the
Valero refinery in Meraux, Louisiana. The fire was extinguished at
approximately 10:00 a.m. on April 11, 2020, and the all-clear was
given. No significant levels of chemicals were detected as a result of
the explosion. Multiple residents in the vicinity of the refinery filed
suit for the negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Spencer, 2022-00469, 2022-00539, 2022-00730, pp. 1-2, 356 So. 3d at 940-41.
Rashaud Brown is one of the residents who witnessed the event and filed
suit. On July 16, 2020, Mr. Brown filed a Petition for Damages with the Justice of
1
the Peace Court in St. Bernard Parish. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC (herein
“Valero”) answered and sought to dismiss the petition. On March 29, 2021, the
Justice of the Peace dismissed the case, and Mr. Brown appealed to the 34th
Judicial District Court. The district court held a trial de novo on October 26, 2021,
during which it considered argument, evidence, and testimony from the parties. On
November 15, 2021, the district court issued a judgment in favor of Mr. Brown in
the amount of $1,750.00 for general damages.
Valero timely filed a supervisory writ with this Court. In its writ application,
Valero argued that the district court erred in awarding general damages for
emotional distress when Mr. Brown had not suffered any physical injury from the
explosion. On February 25, 2022, we denied the writ, specifically finding that there
was a special likelihood of Mr. Brown experiencing genuine and serious mental
distress after witnessing the refinery explosion. Valero then filed a supervisory writ
with the Louisiana Supreme Court. On January 27, 2023, the Louisiana Supreme
Court issued its decision in Spencer. On April 4, 2023, the Louisiana Supreme
Court granted writ in this case and remanded the matter back for reconsideration in
light of its opinion in Spencer. See Brown v. Valero Ref. Meraux, LLC, 2022-
00521 (La. 4/4/23), ___ So.3d ____, ____, 2023 WL 2769375.
Discussion
The Spencer Decision
The plaintiffs in the Spencer case were similarly situated to Mr. Brown. The
plaintiffs in Spencer all lived near the Valero refinery and witnessed the explosion.
Although none of the plaintiffs had sought therapy, all noted that they experienced
anxiety from the explosion. They all received monetary judgments for emotional
distress despite not having suffered a physical injury from the explosion.
2
In analyzing the claims, the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that public
policy considerations require reasonable limits be placed on recovery for negligent
infliction of emotional distress damages, especially for claims that do not have an
accompanying physical damage or injury. Spencer, 2022-00469, 2022-00539,
2022-00730, p. 10, 356 So. 3d at 946. In order to recover such damages absent a
physical injury, a plaintiff must prove that there was a special likelihood of
genuine and serious mental distress arising from special circumstances. Id. at p. 16,
356 So. 3d at 950 (quoting Moresi v. State Through Dep’t. of Wildlife & Fisheries,
567 So. 2d 1081, 1096 (La. 1990)). However, “[t]his rule must be ‘stringently
applied’ in cases that are inherently speculative in nature.” Id. (quoting Bonnette v.
Conoco, Inc., 2001-2767, p. 24 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So. 2d 1219, 1235). Evidence of
generalized fear or mere inconvenience is insufficient to meet this standard. Id. A
plaintiff must show that his or her mental disturbance was serious. Id. Ultimately,
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that none of the plaintiffs in the case put
forth sufficient evidence to prove that their mental disturbances were serious. Id. at
p. 18. As such, the record did not support a reasonable basis for the awards, and the
Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts awards for negligent infliction
of emotional distress damages.
On Remand
The Louisiana Supreme Court noted in Spencer that this Court must review
the district court’s factual determination under a manifest error standard. Spencer,
2022-00469, 2022-00539, 2022-00730, p. 8, 356 So. 3d at 945. Under this
standard, we must review the record in its entirety and determine that a reasonable
factual basis for the determination does not exist for the district court’s ruling. Id.
3
(citing Stobart v. State, through the Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So. 2d 880, 882
(La. 1993)).
At the trial of this matter, Mr. Brown testified that the explosion caused the
house to shake and the lights to flicker. He testified that he was scared and that his
family was panicked, which caused him more distress. He did not sleep for two
days after the explosion and still had sleeping issues as of the date of the district
court trial. However, Mr. Brown also admitted that he did not receive medical
treatment after the explosion and had not seen a doctor about his sleep issues. Mr.
Brown did not provide any further evidence regarding his mental anguish.
Mr. Brown’s cousin, Kevreion Raines, was a plaintiff in Spencer. Mr.
Brown lives with Ms. Raines and their extended family, and the two shared similar
experiences the night of the explosion. The Louisiana Supreme Court determined
that Ms. Raines, like the other plaintiffs, did not provide sufficient evidence to
support a finding that her mental disturbance was serious. Similar to the Spencer
plaintiffs, Mr. Brown also failed to put forth sufficient evidence to show that his
mental disturbance was serious and more than a generalized fear or inconvenience.
In light of this, we find that the record does not contain a reasonable basis to
support the district court’s award for negligent infliction of emotional distress
damages.
Decree
For the foregoing reasons, we grant Valero’s supervisory writ and reverse
the judgment of the district court awarding Mr. Brown damages.
WRIT GRANTED; NOVEMBER 15, 2021 JUDGMENT
REVERSED; AND JUDGMENT RENDERED
4