Opinion ID: 2458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Plaintiffs' Failure to Prove Gross Negligence or Intentional Misconduct

Text: Having determined as a matter of law that defendants were in fact responding to an emergency that threatened a release of hazardous substances, we conclude that plaintiffs' pursuit of their § 9607(a) claim depended on their proving gross negligence or intentional misconduct by defendants. The jury specifically found that plaintiffs failed to carry this burden as to the Town of Babylon. Although the jury did not reach this question with respect to the Fire Company, we conclude that the trial record would not permit any reasonable jury to find that the costs or damages plaintiffs incurred in dealing with the hazardous materials release were a result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the Fire Company. Section 9607(d)(2) defines gross negligence as reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct. This comports with the common law definition of gross negligence as conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing. Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5, 13 (2d Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (applying standard and stating that rules establishing cause of action for gross negligence are well-settled under New York law); Sommer v. Fed. Signal Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 540, 554, 583 N.Y.S.2d 957, 963, 593 N.E.2d 1365 (1992) (applying same standard). Indeed, this court has identified reckless conduct as that which generally imports the concept of heedless indifference to consequences to another, Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 985 (2d Cir.1991), and as conduct which is highly unreasonable and which represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care ... to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it, Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 47 (2d Cir.1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Chill v. Gen. Elec. Co., 101 F.3d 263, 269 (1996); see also Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 620 N.Y.S.2d 297, 300, 644 N.E.2d 988 (1994) (holding that a standard of reckless disregard for the safety of others required evidence that defendant had engaged in conduct of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and ha[d] done so with conscious indifference to the outcome (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although plaintiffs adduced some evidence questioning particular decisions made by the Fire Company in fighting the blaze at the AMW facility, they do not argue on appeal that the decisions manifested gross negligence, nor could they in light of evidence that the decisions, far from representing an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d at 47, fell well within industry standards, see Chill v. Gen. Elec. Co., 101 F.3d at 269 (noting that facts alleged to support recklessness must be strong circumstantial evidence of that recklessness (internal quotation marks omitted)). Instead, they argue that defendants' alleged violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120, requiring training for persons engaged in hazardous substance operations, demonstrates defendants' gross negligence or intentional misconduct. The argument merits little discussion. Section 1910.120 is meant to ensure the safety of employees engaged in operations at hazardous waste sites, see id. § 1910.120(a)(1)(i)-(iii); at hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, see id. § 1910.120(a)(1)(iv); and at the site of an emergency response to the release, or threatened release of hazardous substances, see id. at § 1910.120(a)(1)(v). See generally Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 96, 112 S.Ct. 2374, 120 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992) (observing that OSHA regulations were promulgated in furtherance of Congress's intent `to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions' (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 651(b))). It says nothing about protecting owners from property damage caused by untrained workers. Assuming without deciding that a factfinder could have concluded that the Fire Company failed to comply with OSHA training requirements meant to promote employee safety, some further evidence was necessary to demonstrate that the failure manifested intentional misconduct toward plaintiffs or so extreme [a] departure from the standards of ordinary care as to constitute gross negligence. Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d at 47. Moreover, some further evidence was necessary to link defendants' intentional misconduct or gross negligence to the costs or damages for which plaintiffs sought compensation. Indeed, the trial court so instructed the jury, without objection: The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated certain OSHA regulations. That's up to you to determine whether they proved that by a preponderance of the evidence. If you find that the defendants violated these OSHA regulations that apply to this case, you may consider the violation as some evidence of negligence along with other evidence in the case, provided that such violation was a substantial factor in causing damages. However, if you find that the plaintiffs proved such a violation of OSHA regulations, it is not conclusive. It is only some evidence of negligence. Trial Tr. at 2273 (emphasis added). Because such further evidence is lacking from the trial record, we conclude that the § 9607(d)(2) defense was established as a matter of law in this case, and that judgment on the CERCLA claims was properly entered in favor of defendants.

Plaintiffs submit that the judgment in favor of defendants on their negligence claim is infected by an error in the district court's jury instructions regarding the special relationship giving rise to a municipal duty in tort. See Pelaez v. Seide, 2 N.Y.3d 186, 198-99, 778 N.Y.S.2d 111, 117, 810 N.E.2d 393 (2004). Because plaintiffs failed to object to this part of the charge at trial, our review is limited to fundamental error. [14] SCS Commc'ns, Inc. v. Herrick Co., Inc., 360 F.3d 329, 343 (2d Cir.2004). In fact, we identify no error in the court's instructions. In Pelaez v. Seide, 2 N.Y.3d at 198-202, 778 N.Y.S.2d at 116-19, 810 N.E.2d 393, the New York Court of Appeals held that, in determining whether a municipality has voluntarily assumed a duty, the breach of which gives rise to tort liability, a factfinder must consider four factors set forth in Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255, 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 375, 505 N.E.2d 937 (1987). The Court of Appeals explained: Most of our municipal special relationship cases have centered on whether a municipality has assumed an affirmative duty that generated justifiable reliance by the plaintiff. We laid out the test in Cuffy v. City of New York .... It requires (1) an assumption by a municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured party; (2) knowledge on the part of a municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking. Pelaez v. Seide, 2 N.Y.3d at 202, 778 N.Y.S.2d at 119, 810 N.E.2d 393. This is precisely the approach the district court adopted in its jury instruction. See Trial Tr. at 3567-68. Accordingly, because we identify no error, let alone fundamental error, in the court's charge, we affirm the negligence judgment in favor of defendants.
Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on their New York Navigation Law claim for a petroleum discharge. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 50, 59. Where, as here, a jury has deliberated in a case and actually returned its verdict, a district court may set aside the verdict pursuant to Rule 50 only where there is such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded men could not arrive at a verdict against him. Cross v. New York City Transit Auth., 417 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir.2005) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Although we review the district court's denial of a Rule 50 motion de novo, we are bound by the same stern standards. Id. A district court may grant a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 even when there is evidence to support the jury's verdict, so long as the court determines that, in its independent judgment, the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or its verdict is a miscarriage of justice. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 392 (2d Cir.2005) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). The standard for ordering a new trial is therefore somewhat less stern than that for entering judgment as a matter of law, but our review of a district court's disposition of a Rule 59 motion is more deferential, and we will not reverse except for abuse of discretion. Id. New York law holds [a]ny person who has discharged petroleum ... strictly liable, without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs and all direct and indirect damages, no matter by whom sustained, as defined in this section. N.Y. Nav. Law § 181(1). Plaintiffs argue that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the jury's finding that defendants did not discharge petroleum in the course of fighting the AMW fire. Appellants Br. at 66. The record is to the contrary. Notably, defendants' expert Andrew Barber testified that none of the data collected on the night of the fire indicated a release of petroleum. Indeed, Barber testified that a fire as large as the one at the AMW facility would likely have consumed any petroleum on the site. Barber further testified that the oil-soaked soil behind the AMW warehouse did not necessarily point to a petroleum release during the fire because that site involved a dry well that probably hadn't been cleaned out in some period of time. Trial Tr. at 2802. Similarly, Nick Acampora, a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation spill inspector who responded to the fire, testified that he did not recall seeing, nor did his contemporaneous notes mention, a petroleum sheen on any of the runoff water from the fire. Id. at 1775. He testified that observation of any such sheen would have been sufficiently important to include in his report. Janet Gremli, a Suffolk County Department of Health employee who responded to the fire, testified that she had no recollection of a petroleum sheen on any of the runoff water. Assuming as we must that this testimony was credited by the jury, it suffices to support a verdict in favor of defendants on the Navigation Law claim and the denial of plaintiffs' motion to enter judgment in their favor or to grant a new trial. In further support of their new trial motion on the Navigation Law claim, plaintiffs submit that they were denied a fair trial by defendants' display to the jury, during summation, of documents not in evidence purportedly supporting their argument that no petroleum was discharged. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the documents had not been received in evidence and were not to be considered during deliberations. The law recognizes a strong presumption that juries follow such limiting instructions unless there is an overwhelming probability of their inability to do so. See, e.g., United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119, 129-30 (2d Cir.2006) (collecting cases). This case poses no such probability. Although plaintiffs now complain that the court's instruction was deficient in various respects, because they voiced no such objection before the jury began its deliberations, our review is limited to fundamental error, and we identify none in this case. See SCS Commc'ns, Inc. v. Herrick Co., Inc., 360 F.3d at 343. Accordingly, we identify no merit in this part of plaintiffs' new trial argument.