Thorning v. Shell Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Thorning v. Shell Oil Co.

522 So. 2d 558, 1988 La. LEXIS 389, 1988 WL 29348

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 4, 1988

DocketNo. 88-C-0341

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 558 (Thorning v. Shell Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thorning v. Shell Oil Co., 522 So. 2d 558, 1988 La. LEXIS 389, 1988 WL 29348 (La. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. Relator’s affidavits assert that defendant released dangerous chemicals at night by venting lines and washing drums near his work site, with full knowledge obtained at safety meetings and from other complaints that the release of such chemi[559]*559cals would cause damage to persons and property in the area at the time of release. These affidavits establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether defendant knew that injury was substantially certain to result from its continued operation of the plant without substantial changes. Accordingly, the judgments of the lower courts are reversed, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

MARCUS, WATSON and COLE, JJ., dissent, being of the opinion that the application should be denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. Relator’s affidavits assert that defendant released dangerous chemicals at night by venting lines and washing drums near his work site, with full knowledge obtained at safety meetings and from other complaints that the release of such chemi[559]*559cals would cause damage to persons and property in the area at the time of release. These affidavits establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether defendant knew that injury was substantially certain to result from its continued operation of the plant without substantial changes. Accordingly, the judgments of the lower courts are reversed, the motion for summary judgment is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

MARCUS, WATSON and COLE, JJ., dissent, being of the opinion that the application should be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 558, 1988 La. LEXIS 389, 1988 WL 29348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorning-v-shell-oil-co-la-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack