Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DeRidder Third Amended Petition
DeRidder Third Amended Petition
I. PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiff
1. is a person of full age and majority that resides in
Louisiana.
Louisiana.
Louisiana.
1 The plaintiffs file this Third Amended Petition in compliance with a state-court deadline
(that was established pre-removal) requiring them to do so by June 28, 2018. The
plaintiffs file this amended petition in this Court solely out of an abundance of caution
and to the extent the state court deadline has become a federal court deadline under
28 U.S.C. § 1450. The plaintiffs do not waive their contention that this case was
improperly removed and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
6. Plaintiff is a person of full age and majority that resides in Louisiana.
Texas.
amount of business here and because the claims against PCA arise out of, among other
injury in Louisiana. PCA has already been served and has appeared in this suit.
11. Defendant Boise Packaging & Newsprint, LLC (“Boise P&N”) is organized in Delaware
and has a principal office in Illinois. Boise P&N is licensed to do business in the State of
substantial amount of business here and because the claims against Boise P&N arise out
of, among other things, Boise P&N’s acts and omissions in Louisiana and/or which caused
injury in
12. Defendant Boise, Inc. is organized in Delaware and has a principal office in Illinois.
amount of business here and because the claims against Boise, Inc. arise out of, among
2
Inc.’s acts and omissions in Louisiana and/or which caused injury in Louisiana. Boise,
13. Defendant Eric Snelgrove is an individual of the age of majority who is domiciled
14. Defendant Rick Butterfield is an individual of the age of majority who, upon
Additionally, the claims against Butterfield arise out of, among other things, his acts and
omissions in Louisiana
and/or which caused injury in Louisiana. Butterfield has been served in this case.
tort claims against Defendants related to a plant explosion that occurred in Beauregard
Parish.
16. As shown in its contemporaneous motion to remand, the plaintiffs dispute that this
case was properly removed and that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case.
17. To the extent the case was properly removed, which is denied, venue is proper
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 98(a), because the case was removed from
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
18. On or around February 8, 2017, Plaintiffs suffered severe and debilitating injuries
while working at a paper and containerboard mill located at 420 Highway 190 West,
DeRidder, Louisiana (“the DeRidder mill”). Upon information and belief, the DeRidder
mill is or was owned by Defendant Boise P&N, and operated by Defendant PCA. Upon
information and belief, Boise, Inc. is the parent company of Boise P&N. Defendants
3
by PCA and/or Boise P&N. Defendant Eric Snelgrove was the mill manager at the time
of the incident, and Defendant Rick Butterfield was the safety manager at the mill on
the date of the explosion. Both Defendant Snelgrove and Defendant Butterfield, in
their respective positions within upper management at the mill, had responsibilities
and duties regarding plant safety in general and with respect to the
19. On the date in question, Plaintiffs were working at the DeRidder mill performing
work during a shutdown when a tank violently exploded. Tragically, three individuals
were killed in the blast and many were injured, including Plaintiffs herein.
20. The Defendants owed a duty to provide Plaintiffs a safe workplace but failed to do
so. The Defendants also were responsible for owning, operating, maintaining, and
inspecting the equipment and tank that ultimately exploded and caused harm. To
facility, which also resulted in serious injuries and deaths. Defendants knew of the
hazard, and proceeded with endangering the health and safety of Plaintiffs, causing the
when Defendants:
4
e. failed to have adequate emergency response procedures in place;
23. In addition, Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their
24. Defendants owed a duty consistent with the aforementioned and breached each of
the foregoing duties, through their own acts and omissions and through those for whom
Defendants are responsible. These breaches were the cause in fact and legal cause of Plaintiffs’
injuries. As a
result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries that will affect them every day
of the rest of their lives. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for their injuries since they in no part
25. In addition to the foregoing, Defendant Snelgrove was the mill manager at the
paper mill. According to his testimony, the “buck stop[ped] with him.” The mill owed safety
duties
5
to contractors working onsite, including duties to inform welding contractors of hazards, such as
working near tanks containing flammables. Snelgrove has testified that he shared in
various ways. As mill manager, Snelgrove had a duty to oversee the mill’s departmental
managers, to ensure that they understood their job duties and were following mill
policies and practices. Snelgrove was also personally involved in mill operations from an
approved the process for the annual shutdown (which included bringing contractors
such as the plaintiffs’ employer, Elite Welders, on site) that ultimately resulted in the
explosion, a decision that imposed upon him the duty to evaluate safety considerations.
Snelgrove also owed safety duties to mill workers and contract employees. He has
testified that his duties at the mill were not merely administrative; instead, he
personally had responsibilities for the safety of workers at the plant, and he has testified
that he would take action to address any instances of someone not following plant
safety policies.
26. Snelgrove breached his duties at the plant by having knowledge of and failing to
remedy the hazardous conditions that caused injury to the plaintiffs. Snelgrove agreed
that policies and procedures were one way to prevent danger to workers at the mill, and
he had input, along with others, in writing those policies and procedures. And although
he could have, Snelgrove did not put in place a policy that would require testing of a foul
condensate tank (like the one that exploded) before hot work was performed near the
tank. Snelgrove agreed that it would be important, for planning, to know what products
are contained in tanks in an area where hot work was being performed. He
acknowledged that a foul condensate tank, like the one that exploded here, could
contain flammable liquids. But Snelgrove did not confirm the contents of the tank
before the incident, he had not seen any paperwork where someone identified and
with the products in the tank that exploded, and he did not order anyone to
check the contents of the tank before performing the hot work that resulted in the
incident (though he admits this could have been done). Snelgrove did not know whether
his managers followed policies and procedures on the day of the incident, despite
having a duty to ensure that those policies and procedures were followed. Snelgrove did
not ensure that his managers clearly understood and took charge of their respective
departments; the Chemical Safety Board thus noted that there was confusion as to
which department was in charge of the foul condensate tank that exploded, with the
result that flammable materials inside that tank were never identified or removed
before the hot work above the tank was performed. Snelgrove testified that he works to
help lower the risks so that the mill would not explode, yet despite these supposed
efforts, an explosion still occurred. Snelgrove instructed his leadership team to do the
“necessary things” to accomplish the goal for the shutdown process and make sure the
shutdown was done safely and appropriately. Snelgrove also contributed to and led a
team that put together policies and procedures with a safety objective, including to
prevent the mill from exploding. But these instructions, policies, and procedures were
inadequate.
27. These breaches were the cause in fact and legal cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. As a
result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries that will affect them
every day of the rest of their lives. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for their injuries
28. In addition to the foregoing, Defendant Butterfield was the safety manager at the
mill, which imposed upon him general safety duties and responsibilities, as well as
duties to implement safety protocols and procedures, and to ensure that others
were following such protocols and procedures. Butterfield was directly responsible
7
the hot work permitting system at the mill, which, as Butterfield has testified, is an
essential system with respect to mitigating dangers and hazards at the mill.
29. Butterfield breached his duties by putting the operations department (as opposed to
the safety department) in charge of hot work permitting as of the time of the explosion.
In this setup, Butterfield did not require that operations personnel inform him or his
safety department of proposed hot work being performed at the plant, which resulted in
hot work being performed (allegedly) without the safety department’s knowledge and
without its ability to take necessary steps to mitigate hazards and ensure safety.
Notably, since the explosion at issue in this case, Butterfield has since put the hot work
30. Butterfield also breached safety duties by not ensuring at relevant times that the
operations department was properly trained to and actually were correctly following
necessary safety aspects of hot work permitting system. This had real and concrete
consequences in this case. Butterfield should have but did not make sure that hot work
permit at issue in this case was correctly filled out, or that all checklist requirements
were actually performed; did not verify that operations personnel checked for and/or
attempted to mitigate hazards in area of explosion before hot work started; and did not
make sure that copies of hot work permits were kept in the field and at plant offices, as
required, which Butterfield has agreed is “concern[ing].” These failures with respect to
essential policies and practices were the direct result of Butterfield’s failure to properly
train and oversee operations personnel, who had in any case been improperly tasked
with the hot work permitting system. Notably, Butterfield, has, since the explosion,
ordered additional training to all managers and their reports regarding hot work
work permitting could have made the incident at issue in this case preventable.
31. These breaches were the cause in fact and legal cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. As a
result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries that will affect them
every day of the rest of their lives. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for their injuries
32. In addition to the foregoing, Defendant Boise, Inc., on information and belief, is
the parent company of Boise P&N. On information and belief, Boise, Inc. was the
employer or one of the employers of personnel responsible for mill operations whose
acts and/or omissions contributed to the explosion. On information and belief, Boise,
Inc. additionally affirmatively undertook safety and other duties at the paper mill,
including duties to provide a safe work environment. On information and belief, Boise,
Inc. breached these duties it undertook, thereby causing and/or contributing to the
explosion at issue in this case, as well as the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs.
33. These breaches were the cause in fact and legal cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. As a
result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries that will affect them
every day of the rest of their lives. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for their injuries
35. Boise P&N owned, occupied, and/or controlled the area where Plaintiffs were
injured. PCA operated the mill and occupied and/or controlled the area where Plaintiffs
were injured.
9
36. The condition of the area where Plaintiffs were injured posed unreasonable risks of
harm, and Boise P&N and PCA had actual knowledge or reasonably should have known
37. Plaintiffs did not know of the unreasonably dangerous conditions. Plaintiffs were
invitees who entered the premises for the benefit of Boise P&N and PCA, and with their
knowledge. Boise P&N and PCA each owed a duty to inspect and warn of the
reasonably safe. Boise P&N and PCA breached their duties by failing to warn Plaintiffs of
the known, unreasonably dangerous conditions and by failing to make these conditions
reasonably safe, which actions, in the exercise of reasonable care, could have prevented
38. Boise P&N’s and PCA’s breaches of the above-mentioned duties were the cause in
40. Additionally, the Defendants knew the incident sued on herein was substantially
flammable and combustible emissions from tanks related to mill operations. The
safety rules and regulations in place created by the various Defendants required that
the tank should have been sealed, and operations that provided a source of ignition
should not have been conducted near tanks full of dangerous and flammable gases.
Further, applicable rules and regulations did not permit these actions to occur.
Despite these rules, regulations, laws, and common sense, the Defendants
consciously disregarded such, and ordered work to occur near tanks containing these
dangerous
10
hazards that provided sources of ignition. As such, the Defendants are liable for the
41. Moreover, the Defendants knew that workers were present DeRidder mill, including
those working near the subject tanks that exploded, at the time hot work was being
performed. The Defendants were consciously aware that they were required to clear the
area of potential hazards prior to hot work, as a similar incident occurred at another
the Tomahawk, Wisconsin incident also resulted in serious injuries and deaths of
multiple workers. This was from hot work being performed near tanks that were emitting
dangerous gases. The Defendants were also aware that they were required to ensure no
dangerous gases were being emitted at or near hot work at the DeRidder mill on the date
of the incident with workers located nearby. The Defendants had knowledge that
workers were present at the facility and would be performing hot work near the tanks
that
exploded. Despite all of this knowledge, the Defendants proceeded to order the
Plaintiffs and other workers to work, while simultaneously allowing hot work operations
to occur near tanks known to contain and/or emit dangerous gases and that had a
history of emitting gases, without first checking and/or ensuring the area was clear of
severe
hazards. Therefore, the Defendants knew the tanks were substantially certain to cause
Plaintiffs to suffer significant and life threatening injuries. As such, the Defendants are
disorder, and mental distress, which injuries have caused and will likely cause Plaintiffs
residual disability, past and future disfigurement, past and future scarring, past and
future mental anguish and distress, past and future loss of enjoyment of life, past and
future medical expenses, past lost earnings, future loss of earning capacity, past and
future physical impairment. 43. Plaintiffs’ damages exceed the amount necessary for a
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer this
petition and that, after due proceedings be had, there be judgment entered herein (1) in
favor of the Plaintiffs and against each of the Defendants, jointly and/or solidarily, and
(2) awarding all special and general damages to which the Plaintiffs are entitled, under
Past and future physical pain and suffering and mental anguish;
12
Respectfully
ITKIN LLP
/s/ J. Kyle Findley
J. Kyle Findley
Bar Roll No. 34922
kfindley@arnolditkin.com
Kala Sellers
Bar Roll No. 36182
ksellers@arnolditkin.com
Adam Lewis
Bar Roll No. 37492
alewis@arnolditkin.com
6009 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77007
Tel: (713) 222-3800
Fax: (713) 222-3850
A. M. “Tony” Clayton (#21191)
Michael P. Frugé (#26287)
Richard J. Ward, III (#32267)
CLAYTON, FRUGÉ & WARD
3741 La. Highway 1 South
Port Allen, LA 70767
Telephone: (225) 344-7000
Facsimile: (225) 383-7631
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record this 28th
day of June, 2018, by e-filing it into the CM/ECF system, which will automatically deliver a copy
to all counsel.
13