Some could say the legal sharks have apparently picked up the scent of bloody dollars in the water in the wake of the tragic explosion at the Williams Olefins plant in Geismar on June 13, which has claimed the lives of two so far and left several others injured.
The Creole has learned that a second lawsuit has been filed asserting damage claims with regard to those horrific events. It was filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension.
This second suit has been filed on behalf of three plaintiffs, David Seal, Emory Brown and Fargo Ferguson, against Williams Olefins. These three individuals are believed to have been working at the BASF facility which is located on Hwy. 30, quite a few miles from the site of the explosion.
The Creole contacted the office of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Honeycutt and Fayard, APC in Denham Springs, La. in the attempt to ascertain the extent of their clients’ injuries. The Creole was informed that no one was available for comment.
Earlier today a petition for damages was filed on behalf of Galen P. Mitchell who was also present at BASF at the time of the explosion. A message was left at the office of Mitchell’s attorney, The Becnel Law Firm of Reserve, requesting comment. None has been forthcoming.
Both suits are requesting that a class action be certified by the court.
Interestingly enough, BASF is located on a stretch of Hwy. 30 which had not been closed during the time in which first responders were at the scene of the Williams Olefins explosion. It was accessible while locations closer to the site were not.
Class actions occur when the number of plaintiffs in the aftermath of a large event such as yesterday’s explosion, file numerous lawsuits. Each of the lawsuits will be based upon the same event, i.e. the explosion and the court will never hear so many cases based upon the same set of facts which are alleged to have caused injury. For one thing, the courts have neither the time nor the resources to do so. For another, a jury’s findings will be inconsistent.
For example, one jury might find Williams Olefins 100% at fault while a second jury might not. The courts prefer one finder of fact in any given case. ( The Creole in no way means to assert or imply that Williams Olefins bears the fault in this matter, that is for a jury to decide.) The law abhors such inconsistent results when faced with one set of facts.