ST. LOUIS — A federal appellate court reversed an award of $30 million in punitive damages, but otherwise affirmed an award of $13.75 million in damages to a couple who alleged injuries from a toxic gas cloud at Dyno Mobel's nitric acid plant in Louisiana, Mo.
The plant, known as the LoMo plant, was nearby where Teddy Scott worked. A district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Dyno, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed that decision.
"After a ten-day trial, the jury found in favor of the Scotts, awarding Teddy $13,750,000 in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages on his negligence claim and Melanie $3 million in compensatory damages on her derivative loss of consortium claim," Circuit Judge James B. Loken wrote in the July 11 opinion. "Dyno appeals, raising multiple issues. We reverse the award of punitive damages and otherwise affirm."
In the legal case, the central issue revolves around whether Dyno, the operator of a nitric acid plant, owed a duty of care to protect Teddy Scott from harm caused by emissions during a startup process that led to significant injuries.
The plaintiffs, Teddy Scott and Melanie Scott, alleged negligence on the part of Dyno due to emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) during a startup process that affected nearby workers at the Calumet synthetic lubricant plant, where Teddy Scott was employed.
After Dyno's motion for summary judgment was initially granted by the district court the Scotts appealed and the appellate court eventually reversed that decision.
The court found that foreseeability of harm, a critical component under Missouri law to establish the duty of care, should have been determined by a jury.
The decision paved the way for a full trial where the jury ultimately found Dyno negligent, awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the Scotts, according to the opinion.
Dyno raised several issues on appeal, including whether there was sufficient evidence to establish foreseeability, whether the Scotts proved causation linking Dyno's conduct to Teddy Scott's injuries, and whether errors in jury instructions and evidence exclusion affected the fairness of the trial.
The court reviewed the evidence presented at trial, including expert testimony on weather conditions, emissions management practices, and Dyno's knowledge of potential risks to neighboring workers, the court document states.
Despite Dyno's arguments to the contrary, the appellate court found that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that the circumstances created a foreseeable risk of harm sufficient for ordinary precautions.
Causation was another point of contention, with Dyno arguing that the Scotts failed to prove that considering weather conditions would have altered Dyno's decision to proceed with the startup.
However, the judge wrote, the court determined that the evidence of industry standards and practices supported the jury's finding that a reasonable manufacturer would have delayed startup under similar weather conditions, potentially avoiding the harm suffered by Teddy Scott.
The appellate court also addressed procedural issues raised by Dyno, including challenges to jury instructions and the exclusion of evidence related to prior startup incidents.
It affirmed the district court's discretion in these matters, finding no abuse that would warrant overturning the jury's verdict.
Finally, the court considered punitive damages, overturning the award on the basis that the evidence did not establish the requisite level of recklessness or intentional wrongdoing by Dyno, despite finding negligence.
This decision underscored the high threshold under Missouri law for punitive damages, which requires a showing of conduct exceeding mere negligence, the judge noted in the ruling.
The appellate court affirmed the court's judgment in part, upholding the findings of negligence and compensatory damages, but reversed on the issue of punitive damages.
The case was before Judges Loken, Ralph Erickson and L. Steven Grasz.
The plaintiffs were represented by Robert W. Schmieder II of SL Chapman; Robert J. Evola of Holland Law Firm; and Bradley Matthew Lakin of SL Chapman
The defendant was represented by James F. Bennett of Dowd Bennett; Julianne P. Blanch and Brandon J. Mark of Parsons and Behle; and William S. Thomas of Gausnell O'Keefe.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit case number: 22-3034