In Re Caribbean Petroleum, Lp

611 F. Supp. 2d 99, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37261, 2009 WL 1164543
CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedApril 29, 2009
DocketCivil 04-1964 (FAB)
StatusPublished

This text of 611 F. Supp. 2d 99 (In Re Caribbean Petroleum, Lp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Caribbean Petroleum, Lp, 611 F. Supp. 2d 99, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37261, 2009 WL 1164543 (prd 2009).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER FOLLOWING SECOND BENCH TRIAL

BESOSA, District Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are the second group of residents of Cabrera Development in Utuado who filed a damages action against the debtor because of a gasoline spill. A bench trial was held to determine damages for the first group of 16 representatives of residents who are or were asthmatic or suffered from other respiratory illnesses. (Docket Nos. 87-90; 101-104) The Court issued an Opinion and Order following [the first] Bench Trial, awarding damages to those 16 plaintiffs. (Docket No. 131) In re Caribbean Petroleum, LP, 561 F.Supp.2d 194 (D.P.R.2008) (Caribbean Petroleum I).

Further introductory statements, an analysis of the law of damages in Puerto Rico and the factual and legal findings of the liability trial held before the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, Utuado Division, are contained in Caribbean Petroleum I (Docket No. 131, pp. 1-9), 561 F.Supp.2d at 198-202, and need not be repeated here. As it did following the first bench trial, the Court has considered the findings made by the Utuado Court and the testimonial and documentary evidence presented at the second bench trial to arrive at its findings of fact.

Thirteen plaintiffs testified during the second bench trial, held on October 15, 17 and 20, 2008. They are:

1. Ivan Robles-Irizarry (Oct. 15 Tr., pp. 7-34)
2. Alicia Rivera-Martinez (Oct. 15 Tr., pp. 34-54)
3. William Morales-Martinez (Oct. 15 Tr., pp. 54-69)
4. Daisy Rodriguez-Acevedo (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 6-22)
5. Iris Natal-Andujar (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 22-37)
6. Alberto Albaran-Natal (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 37-49)
7. Mariano Jose Albaran-Natal (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 49-63)
8. Andres Gonzalez-Baez (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 63-73)
9. Maribel Rodriguez-Maldonado (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 73-89)
10.Ginette Marie Matos-Molina (Oct. 17 Tr., pp. 89-111)
*103 11. Rafael Moran-Gonzalez (Oct. 20 Tr., pp. 6-15)
12. Moraima Moran-Velez (Oct. 20 Tr., pp. 15-19)
13. Carmelo Gonzalez-de Jesus (Oct. 20 Tr., pp. 19-39)

Plaintiffs did not present an expert during the second bench trial. Defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Arturo Cederlo, who had also testified during the first bench trial. (Oct. 20 Tr., pp. 39-77)

II. EVIDENCE PRESENTED

1. Ivan Robles Irizarry

Ivan Robles-Irizarry is 44 years old and is married to Alicia Marrero-Gonzalez; they have two sons, Ivan RoblesMarrero and Alexis Robles-Marrero. From 1979 to 1998 he lived at B-38 in Cabrera Development with his family. In late 1993, he began to perceive a stench of gasoline in the neighborhood, and attempted with his family and neighbors to find the odor’s source. He testified that he began to feel tired and started to feel irritation in his eyes, skin and throat, nasal congestion and weak headaches. He further stated that the smell affected his daily activities, especially practicing his guitar and giving guitar lessons, because he used to do that in his house’s balcony or carport.

Because the gasoline fumes affected his family, he became anxious and preoccupied about their health. His wife complained of nasal and throat problems and difficulty breathing. His children complained of headaches, nausea, irritation of the nose and skin, and of becoming tired.

The smell of gasoline was felt with more intensity during cold, rainy days, in the mornings and at dusk, especially during 1993, 1994 and 1995. To escape the smell, the family would go to town plaza, to his parents’ house at the Vivi Arriba Ward in Utuado, and to Guayanilla, where his in-laws lived, on weekends. They considered moving from Cabrera, but their economic situation did not allow it, and furthermore, because their children did not want to move from where they were spending their childhood.

Mr. Robles testified that the family took home remedies and over-the-counter medication such as Tylenol, Panadol and Visine in an effort to minimize the symptoms they were feeling. He also testified that in January 1994 he visited Dr. Broceo, who prescribed medication (Librax) for his anxiety and irritations. In the chart he filled out, however, he did not indicate that he visited any physician or emergency ward because of the symptoms he felt because of the gasoline smell. Neither did he indicate in the chart that he suffered headaches because of the smell.

Dr. Cedeño, defendant’s expert witness, repeated his testimony at the first bench trial that gasoline is a respiratory tract irritant, but that Mr. Robles’ complaints may be caused by illnesses such as the common cold and upper respiratory infections.

Based on the chart he prepared, the Court finds that Mr. Robles either did not visit Dr. Broceo or, if he did, it was for reasons not related to the gasoline fumes. Nevertheless, Court finds that Mr. Robles has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the damages he suffered were caused by the gasoline fumes. Accordingly, he is entitled to damages in the amount of $30,000.

2. Alicia Rivera-Martinez

Alicia Rivera-Martinez is married to Lizando Martinez-Rivera. They had three *104 sons who were 16, 1 12 and 8 years old at the time of the gasoline spill. They have lived at B-39 in Cabrera Development for 29 years.

As most, if not all of the plaintiffs who have testified in both bench trials, she began to perceive gasoline odors in late 1998. With neighbors, she tried to find the source of the smell. They discarded the police headquarters construction site after speaking with the engineer-in-charge. When they discovered that the odor came from the Rio Grande de Arecibo, they reported their findings to the Environmental Quality Board and the Civil Defense. The odors continued through 1995, especially during the afternoon and evening hours and during and after rains. By 1996 and 1997 the intensity of the smell had decreased.

Mrs. Rivera testified that she felt nausea, pressure on her chest, she felt she could not breathe properly, had strong headaches and irritated eyes. She became anguished because her children were affected by the fumes, also; her second son, Ricardo, developed asthma.

She also testified that she visited the Emergency Ward of the Municipal Hospital twice. Both times she complained of asthma-like symptoms and was given respiratory therapy. She also took her children to specialists. Because she could treat herself with the medication prescribed to her children, she felt she did not have to have follow-up visits herself for her conditions. No records of any of these visits were presented.

Though no medical records were presented to support her testimony, the Court finds that Mrs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Caribbean Petroleum, LP
561 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D. Puerto Rico, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
611 F. Supp. 2d 99, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37261, 2009 WL 1164543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-caribbean-petroleum-lp-prd-2009.