August 26, 2025

Berniard Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Following Smitty’s Supply Explosion in Tangipahoa Parish

Image of the Smitty’s Supply explosion and fire in Roseland, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, showing thick smoke and flames after the lubricant plant accident that led to evacuations. On August 22, 2025, the Tangipahoa Parish community was shaken by the massive explosion and fire at Smitty’s Supply, Inc. The incident released thick, black smoke, ash, and oily residue across nearby neighborhoods and waterways, forcing residents to evacuate and leaving families with property damage, health concerns, and lingering uncertainty about long-term effects.

In response, the Berniard Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of affected residents and property owners. The suit alleges that Smitty’s Supply failed to properly maintain its facility and negligently stored hazardous petroleum and chemical products, creating conditions that led directly to the explosion and fire.

The lawsuit seeks damages for:

August 25, 2025

What You Need to Know About the Smitty’s Supply Explosion and Fire in Tangipahoa Parish

by Berniard Law Firm

Image of the Smitty’s Supply explosion and fire in Roseland, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, showing thick smoke and flames after the lubricant plant accident that led to evacuations. On August 22, 2025, residents of Roseland and surrounding Tangipahoa Parish woke up to a terrifying scene: a massive explosion and fire at Smitty’s Supply Inc., a lubricant manufacturing and distribution facility. The incident forced evacuations, sent thick black smoke into the air, and left homes, cars, and yards covered in an oily residue that rained down with the storm that followed.

As investigators work to determine the cause, many families and employees are left wondering: What happens next? What are my rights if I was affected?

The Impact of the Smitty’s Fire

August 11, 2023

Plaintiffs’ Damages Awarded Can Vary Based On Evidence Presented

by Berniard Law Firm

refinery_oil_aerial_natural_1-1024x683 When multiple people are injured in the same incident, you might expect they are all eligible to recover the same type of damages, even if the precise dollar amount varies. This case indicates how the categories of damages awarded can vary by plaintiff, depending on the testimony and other evidence presented at trial.

Fourteen workers at the Citgo Petroleum Corporation refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide following a gas release. The workers suffered various symptoms, including nasal irritation, headaches, and chest pain. The workers filed a lawsuit against Citgo, arguing their symptoms resulted from the gas release. The trial court awarded nine of the fourteen plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury. All fourteen plaintiffs received damages for mental anguish/loss of enjoyment of life. Citgo appealed.

On appeal, Citgo argued the trial court erred in awarding nine plaintiffs damages for fear of future injury because there was no evidence that the gas release could cause them future health problems. To recover for fear of future injury, a plaintiff must show a possibility of such damages from the tortious conduct. See Broussard v. Olin Corp. At trial, even the plaintiff’s expert witness did not testify that the plaintiffs were at risk for future health problems from the gas release. Additionally, there were studies presented indicating there were no known future health issues from similar exposures. Therefore, the appellate court found the trial court’s award of damages for future injuries was “mere speculation” and reversed the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injuries to the nine plaintiffs.

August 10, 2023

Exploring Complex Damage Awards in Workplace Injury Lawsuits

by Berniard Law Firm

refineries_haifa_israel_night-1024x682 While headlines often tout substantial monetary awards for injured workers, the intricacies of such compensation might remain shrouded in mystery. Behind every high-stakes verdict lies a meticulous process of presenting compelling evidence to substantiate the array of damages claimed. In a recent case involving workers at a Firestone Polymers plant, the multifaceted nature of damages is unveiled, shedding light on the need for robust legal representation to navigate the diverse categories of compensation.

Workers at Firestone Polymers plant near CITGO Petroleum Company’s refinery in Lake Charles, Louisiana, were exposed to higher than permitted sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide levels. Eight individuals who worked at Firestone filed a lawsuit against CITGO. At trial, the court held the employees’ exposure to the higher than permitted levels of sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide caused their injuries, including headaches, coughs, eye and sinus irritation, and sore throats. The trial court awarded damages based on the workers’ injuries over three years. Although CITGO agreed it was liable, it appealed the damages awarded to the injured workers.

On appeal, CITGO argued the trial court’s award of damages for fear of future injury was duplicative of the mental anguish damages. CITGO also argued there was insufficient evidence to support the fear of future injury and medical expense damages awarded to the workers.

June 15, 2023

Asbestos Case Sent Back To State Court Because Of Lack of Causal Nexus

by Berniard Law Firm

bauer_elementary_asbestos_1-1024x768 Unraveling the complexities of jurisdiction is essential when determining which court has the authority to hear a lawsuit. Whether a case is heard in state or federal court can have strategic implications, but the path to federal court is paved with complex legal requirements. In this article, we delve into the intricacies of jurisdiction and explore the factors determining whether your lawsuit can be heard in federal court.

The four Legendre brothers filed a lawsuit against Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (formerly known as Avondale) in Louisiana state court. The Legendres claimed Avondale exposed their sister to asbestos, resulting in her death from mesothelioma.

The Legendres’ father had worked at Avondale’s shipyard building tugs for the United States government. He used asbestos for insulation in the tugs’ engine rooms. The Legendres claimed asbestos had stuck to their father’s body and clothing, which exposed their sister to asbestos when he returned home from work.

May 21, 2023

Exposure to Radioactive Materials: Substantiating Injury Claims with Evidence and Expert Witnesses

by Berniard Law Firm

nuclear_waste_radioactive_trash-1024x529 Exposure to naturally occurring radioactive materials generally increases due to human activity. Proving harm from these activities may be difficult, however. The following Jefferson Parish case demonstrates the need for substantiating your injury claim with evidence. It further shows the weight a court may place on expert witnesses.

In this case, over 1,100 individuals, referred to as the “Dottie Adams” plaintiffs, filed a petition together stating they were either directly or indirectly harmed by exposure to radioactive material caused by Exxon Mobil Corporation, Mobil Exploration, and Producing North America, Inc. (“Exxon”), and Shell Oil Company, Shell Offshore, Inc., SWEPI LP, ConocoPhillips Company, and Alpha Technical Services, Inc. (“Shell”). The Dottie Adams plaintiffs all lived, or currently live, in Harvey or worked near the contaminated Grefer Tract, a 33-acre industrial tract in Harvey.

After years of litigation, Exxon filed motions for summary judgment alleging that several of the Dottie Adams plaintiffs could not substantiate their claim that they or their property were exposed to radioactive material above naturally occurring background levels. In their motions, Exxon included an affidavit from its expert health physicist, who stated, in part, that it was more likely than not the plaintiffs’ properties were not impacted by the naturally occurring radioactive material from the operations occurring in the Grefer Tract.

March 21, 2023

All or Nothing—Piecemeal Peremptory Exception Reversed for Louisiana’s Drug Fraud Case

by Berniard Law Firm

owens_drug_company-1024x857 The legal system is complicated, with many “dos-and don’ts.” Whether or not you can have your case heard in court first requires following the rules guiding the sufficiency of your claim. If your complaint fails to show that you have a right to bring the case against your defendant, your case might be dismissed. But how strictly interpreted is this rule? What does it look like when a cause of action is sufficient to be heard or ripe for dismissal?

The State of Louisiana brought a lawsuit against various pharmaceutical companies participating in manufacturing and selling Actos. The State alleged that the pharmaceutical companies misrepresented Actos’s efficacy and side effects. The State also claimed that research showed that Actos greatly increases the chance of bladder cancer. The State alleged the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose this information.

In its case against the pharmaceutical companies, the State alleged that it would not have bought and distributed Actos if its risks had been clarified. Because of the drug companies’ alleged misrepresentation, Louisiana sought to recoup damages due to fraud, redhibition, unjust enrichment, and infringement of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), La. R.S. 51:1405, and violations of the Louisiana Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law (MAPIL), La. R.S. 46:437.1. In response, the drug companies brought various objections—peremptory exceptions including no cause of action, res judicata, no right of action, and dilatory exceptions including vagueness or ambiguity of the State’s petition, and the petition’s not following state law requirements. La. C.C.P. art. 891.

March 18, 2023

Judicial Notice of Facts, When Can and Can’t it Be Used in Louisiana Trials

by Berniard Law Firm

refinery_petroleum_oil_industry-2-1024x683 When another or a company’s actions harm a person, he is entitled to financial relief under Louisiana law. The law also requires proof of damages to prove entitlement to monetary compensation. Damages are proven by submitting facts to a trial court. Sometimes the parties agree upon the facts, and sometimes they are disputed.

Another way of providing facts to the Court is through Judicial Notice. This legal concept allows a court to take notice of facts generally known within a community or otherwise cannot be reasonably questioned. What may be known in the community can still be a disputed issue at trial. The following case, which involved the Berniard Law Firm’s clients, raised the question concerning judicial notice of facts when it can and cannot be used in Louisiana trials.

An industrial accident occurred at Chalmette Refining’s St. Bernard facility on September 6, 2012, due to an emergency shutdown. The sudden shutdown caused a release of nineteen tons of regenerated catalyst over a large portion of St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish homes and property.

March 11, 2023

Louisiana Court Reverses Company’s Liability to People Allegedly Exposed to Chemical Leak, Finding No Evidence of “Specific Causation”

by Berniard Law Firm

gefahrguttransport-1024x768 When a chemical leaks from a local business and spreads to a residential area, it is easy to assume that the company has exposed itself to liability for every person exposed to the leak. But what does someone have to prove to be compensated for their exposure? A case out of Avondale explores this question after twenty people were claimed to have been exposed to hydrochloric acid (HCl).

In 2001, a storage tank belonging to McGowan Working Partners, Inc., an oil and gas company, began to leak, causing a vapor solution of HCI and water to blow from the defendant’s property in Avondale to the northwest into the intersection of Jamie Blvd. and Highway 90. Before the leak, a McGowan employee replaced a clear plastic hose on the storage tank and used a nylon fitting to connect the hose to the tank’s valve. Unfortunately, the employee was unaware that HCI causes nylon to deteriorate. Several days later, 600 gallons of an HCl solution were unloaded into the storage tank, and about 470 gallons escaped onto the ground of the McGowan property. The HCI vapor began to spread off the property at 3:10 am, and the valve from the storage tank was shut off at 4:35 am. People exposed to HCI can experience eye and nose irritation which could develop into throat irritation and breathing difficulty. The HCI emissions were shown to stop affecting people at 5:30 am.

Twenty people who lived and worked in the surrounding area sued McGowan in a mass tort suit for exposure to the HCI vapor. A mass tort is when multiple people come together to file a lawsuit against a person or entity responsible for causing all their injuries. The trial court ultimately sided in favor of all twenty plaintiffs and awarded them damages ranging from $1,000 to $8,000.