The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
  • Calendar of Events
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 4.0 Trial Academy 2019
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Michigan Court: Toxic Tort Plaintiffs Only Need Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Injury

Posted on September 28, 2015 by Eleanor Smith
Health concerns persist after Kalamazoo River oil spill

Health concerns persist after a 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has lowered the bar tremendously for tort law plaintiffs attempting to show a causal link between chemical exposure and injury. Going forward, circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences — as opposed to direct evidence or expert testimony — will be enough to demonstrate a causal link in toxic tort cases.

This low standard will undoubtedly bring more opportunities to Michigan personal injury attorneys and could perhaps be influential to other jurisdictions.

The Element of Causation

Plaintiff Chance Lowery sued Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge) after he suffered toxic fume exposure from an oil pipeline that spilled into a stretch of the Kalamazoo River near his home. The spill, which occurred on July 26, 2010, also affected the Talmadge Creek area. Lowery, who lived 250 feet away from the Kalamazoo River in Battle Creek, testified in deposition he began experiencing severe headaches less than 24 hours after the spill.

Lowery went to the emergency room after suffering migraines for one week, a constant bout of vomiting and severe abdominal pain. A Bronson Battle Creek Hospital C.T. scan revealed Lowery had suffered an avulsion of his short gastric artery that led to internal bleeding. It was unclear at the time of appeal when Lowery initially told his doctor about the exposure to gaseous fumes.

Now, however, it is irrelevant what Lowery’s doctor would testify to. The Court said:

“Here, there was a strong enough logical sequence of cause and effect for a jury to reasonably conclude that plaintiff’s exposure to oil fumes caused his vomiting, which ultimately caused his short gastric artery to rupture. Given the proffered evidence, the claim that the already-adjudged negligence of defendants in the release of oil into the Kalamazoo River caused the artery rupture goes beyond mere speculation.”

A Clear Causal Link

See Also: Man Burned by Chemical Vapor Explosion Awarded $10M

The appeals court noted there were still other plausible explanations of Lowery’s injury and acknowledged there may be potentially damaging facts on remand for Lowery. Defendant Enbridge urged the Court of Appeals to adopt the requirements that toxic tort plaintiffs must:

  1. Prove the alleged toxin is capable of causing injuries like those suffered by the plaintiff in other humans subjected to the same exposure as the plaintiff, and
  2. The toxin was the cause of injury.

 

Regardless, Judges Patrick M. Meter and Jane M. Beckering held there was sufficient evidence before them to let Lowery’s case survive a summary judgment motion.

Lowery will still have to demonstrate a sufficient causal link between the spill and his ruptured artery on remand, but negligent operation of the oil pipeline has been affirmed against Enbridge.

A positive effect on plaintiffs

Allowing tort plaintiffs to prove cases through circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences opens the door for plaintiffs who may not necessarily have direct, hard evidence of toxin exposure, but can string together a decently strong chain of events that could reasonably lead to harm. Not only will this decision have a positive effect on individual plaintiffs, but toxic tort class actions, which typically arise in the employment and residential setting, will also be much easier to allege and prove.

The case is Chance Lowery v. Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership and Enbridge Energy Partnership, Case No. 319199 in the State of Michigan Court of Appeals, Calhoun Circuit Court.

Posted in Blog, Class Actions, Personal Injury

Comments are closed.

News Categories

 

 

 

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

Click here for online advertising rates

 


 

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Banner Health in $6M settlement over data breach

Banner Health in $6M settlement over data breach

Banner Health has agreed to pay up to $6 million to victims of a massive data breach the Arizona health system experienced in[Read More...]
How E-Cigarettes Figured in a $42.5MTobacco Verdict

How E-Cigarettes Figured in a $42.5MTobacco Verdict

A Florida jury awarded $42.5 million for a Florida man who blamed tobacco behemoths R.J. Reynolds Tobacco[Read More...]
$34M Recovery in Florida Collision With Brain Injury

$34M Recovery in Florida Collision With Brain Injury

A man recovered more than $34 million for injuries he suffered when a car in which he was riding was broadsided by a pic[Read More...]
Ground Rules for Recovering Mass Tort Attorneys’ Fees

Ground Rules for Recovering Mass Tort Attorneys’ Fees

As of August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported nearly 200 pending multidistrict litigations [Read More...]
$14M settlement for 2 teens electrocuted while rescuing dog

$14M settlement for 2 teens electrocuted while rescuing dog

The families of two Northern California teenagers electrocuted while trying to rescue a dog from an irrigation can[Read More...]
 

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

 

Follow Us!


  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • LinkedIn

 

 

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.