United States Ninth Circuit

In a tort action arising from an accident at a nuclear facility wherein some toxic liquid was splashed on plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to prove specific causation of his physical injuries; 2) summary judgment was proper as to his emotional distress claim for exposure to radioactive materials as plaintiff failed to show any physical harm arising from exposure to radioactive materials; 3) insofar as plaintiff can show that he suffered separately identifiable harm from a cause not related to the harmful properties of the radioactive materials, his claim for such damages is not be preempted by the Price-Anderson Act; and 4) likewise, his wife's loss of consortium claim can be proven under state law, if she can show loss of consortium resulting from the emotional distress that was caused by his exposure to nonradioactive materials.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/12/2007
• Decided 06/11/2008
• Published 06/11/2008

Judges

• Before ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judge, and ANDREW J. GUILFORD, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William Rutzick, Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Thomas J. Heiden and Mary Rose Alexander, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL;  Mark A. Miller, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC;  Stanley J. Bensussen, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, WA, for the defendant-appellee.