Christopher Vitrano v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 18, 2023
• Docket: 2022-C-0146
• Status: Published

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER VITRANO * NO. 2022-C-0146

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. 21-0473, DIVISION “E” Honorable Eric A. Bopp ****** Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Paula A. Brown, 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 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; FEBRUARY 4, 2022 JUDGMENT REVERSED; AND JUDGMENT RENDERED April 18, 2023 NEK TFL PAB

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.

Christopher Vitrano is one of the residents who witnessed the event and filed

suit. On January 22, 2021, Mr. Vitrano filed a Petition for Damages with the

1 Justice of the Peace Court in St. Bernard Parish. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC

(herein “Valero”) answered and sought to dismiss the petition. On March 26, 2021,

the Justice of the Peace dismissed the case, and Mr. Vitrano appealed to the 34th

Judicial District Court. The district court held a trial de novo on January 6, 2022,

during which it considered argument, evidence, and testimony from the parties. On

February 4, 2022, the district court issued a judgment in favor of Mr. Vitrano in the

amount of $1,000.00 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. Vitrano had not suffered any physical injury from the

explosion. On March 31, 2022, we denied the writ, specifically finding that there

was a special likelihood of Mr. Vitrano 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 Vitrano v. Valero Ref. Meraux, LLC, 2022-

00724 (La. 4/4/23), ___ So.3d ____, ____, 2023 WL 2769305.

Discussion

The Spencer Decision

The plaintiffs in the Spencer case were similarly situated to Mr. Vitrano. 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. Vitrano testified that he lived about a mile and

a half away from the refinery. On the night of the incident, he was awakened by a

loud explosion, and he witnessed fire and smoke coming from the refinery. Mr.

Vitrano testified that he was unable to fall back asleep after the explosion and

remained awake for hours. He also admitted that he did not seek any medical

attention for a physical or mental injury. Mr. Vitrano did not provide any further

evidence regarding his mental anguish. Similar to the Spencer plaintiffs, Mr.

Vitrano failed to put forth sufficient evidence 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. Vitrano damages.

WRIT GRANTED; FEBRUARY 4, 2022 JUDGMENT REVERSED; AND JUDGMENT RENDERED