The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s decision in a case involving a workplace injury, ruling that the victim’s fatal drug overdose was a “superseding cause” of his death, not directly linked to the initial injury.
The Incident and Initial Lawsuit
The case, *Bommarito, III v. Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, L.L.C.*, stemmed from an accident on the Mississippi River. Bosit Bommarito, a welder, was injured while working on a launch site. He fell after a hook, part of a crane’s rigging, came loose and struck him. The hook lacked a safety latch, a violation of safety standards.
Bommarito suffered a head injury, a fractured eye socket, and other injuries. He was prescribed several pain medications, including Oxycodone, fentanyl, and Tramadol. After his prescription ran out, his mother, a retired nurse, testified that he was still in significant pain. She attempted to get him an appointment with a doctor, but none were available. The day after, Bommarito was found unconscious and later died from an overdose of fentanyl mixed with Xylazine, a horse tranquilizer not meant for human use.
Bommarito’s estate sued Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, LLC and Belle Chasse Land Transportation, Inc., for personal injury under the Jones Act and general maritime law, and later added a claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The district court found Belle Chasse liable for vessel negligence under the LHWCA and awarded damages to Bommarito’s children and mother.
The Appeal and the Court’s Reasoning
Belle Chasse appealed the decision, and the Fifth Circuit addressed several key issues. The court first confirmed that it had jurisdiction in the case, finding that the defective hook was an “appurtenance” of the vessel, thus falling under federal admiralty law.
The central issue in the appeal was the cause of Bommarito’s death. While the initial injury at work was caused by negligence, the court determined that the overdose was a “superseding cause,” breaking the chain of causation. In other words, the court found that the injury at work, while a contributing factor, did not directly cause the overdose. The court reasoned that Bommarito’s decision to ingest illegal drugs, and in a lethal amount, was not reasonably foreseeable by Belle Chasse.
The court cited legal precedent, including cases where courts have found that ingesting illegal drugs is a superseding cause. The court highlighted that Bommarito’s blood contained more than six times the lethal dose of fentanyl and that the source of the fentanyl was street drugs.
Corporate Structure and Liability
The court also addressed the relationship between Belle Chasse Marine Transportation and Belle Chasse Land Transportation. The lower court had determined that the two companies were essentially the same entity, a concept known as “piercing the corporate veil.” This meant that the actions of one company could be attributed to the other. The appellate court agreed with the lower court’s determination that the two companies were essentially one. They shared insurance policies, human resources, and officers, and Land provided services exclusively for Marine.
The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Haynes dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority’s conclusion that the overdose was a superseding cause. Judge Haynes argued that the district court’s finding that the overdose was a direct consequence of Bommarito’s injuries and the resulting pain was not “clearly erroneous.”
The dissenting judge noted that the district court’s decision was based on factual findings that should be affirmed unless clearly wrong. Judge Haynes pointed out that Bommarito had never used illegal drugs before and was only taking fentanyl to cope with the pain from his injuries after running out of prescription painkillers. The dissenting opinion also highlighted that a defense witness testified that it was common for people in Bommarito’s situation to take fentanyl to address their injuries.
The Outcome
Because the court found that the overdose was a superseding cause, it reversed the lower court’s award of damages for wrongful death to Bommarito’s family. The court also reversed the award of loss of consortium to Susan Bommarito, as she was a non-dependent parent.