Jeremiah Bell Versus Atalco, LLC, Atalco Gramercy, LLC

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-C-379

JEREMIAH BELL

versus

ATALCO, LLC, ATALCO GRAMERCY, LLC, ET AL.

IN RE ATALCO, LLC AND ATALCO GRAMERCY, LLC
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
CODY M. MARTIN, DIVISION "B", No. 42,282

September 23, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois

WRIT DENIED

Relators, Atalco, LLC and Atalco Gramercy, LLC (Atalco), seek supervisory

review of the trial court’s July 15, 2026 judgment denying their motion for summary

judgment. After de novo review, for the reasons that follow, we deny the writ

application.

BACKGROUND

This litigation concerns claims for personal injury arising from the alleged

injurious exposure of Plaintiff, State Trooper Jeremiah Bell, to a hazardous chemical

during a traffic stop. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit wherein he alleged that,

on July 17, 2023, he was exposed to sodium hydrosulfide vapor released from a

26-C-379

tanker truck shortly after it departed Atalco’s facility in Gramercy, Louisiana.

Plaintiff sued Atalco (the buyer of the chemical); TDC, LLC (the seller of the

chemical); Davison Transportation Services, LLC and Genesis Energy, LLC (the

transporter of the chemical); and Seymour Scaife (the driver of the chemical tanker

truck), alleging claims of intentional tort,1 statutory negligence,2 negligence per se,3

res ipsa loquitor,4 and general negligence.5

1
Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages for
Chemical Exposure alleges:

The actions of Defendants were willful and in violation of the applicable safety
standards and statutes and in the failure to perform proper testing and inspection
procedures on the facility and in its equipment and vehicles and, as a result,
Defendants’ conduct constitutes negligence per se.
2
See n.1, supra.
3
See n.1, supra.
4
Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages for
Chemical Exposure alleges:

The injuries and damages suffered by petitioner were caused by acts and omissions
of Defendants which acts or omissions may be beyond proof of plaintiff herein, but
which are within the knowledge and control of Defendants, in that the release of
hazardous and/or toxic substances should not have occurred had Defendants
exercised the degree of care imposed upon Defendants in the handling of hazardous
and/or toxic substances, and plaintiff therefore pleads the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor.
5
Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages for
Chemical Exposure alleges against Atalco specifically:

The negligence of ATALCO, their agents, servants, and/or employees, included but
not limited to the following acts and/or omissions:

A. In allowing to exist a hazardous situation consisting of the opened valve which
emitted noxious gas;

B. In habitually allowing to exist a hazardous situation consisting of opened valves
on delivery trucks which emitted noxious gas;

C. In failing to discover or close the open valve;

D. In failing to properly inspect the tank truck to assure that equipment and
personnel were fit for its intended purpose;

E. In instructing Defendant SCAIFE, and other similarly situated drivers, to leave
the valve open when he left the plant;

F. In acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of
others;

2

As it relates to Atalco, Plaintiff asserted that Atalco owed and breached a duty

to him to ensure that the driver (Scaife) of the transporter’s (Davison) truck

depressurized the tanker prior to leaving the unloading pad at the Atalco facility, and

that this omission was a cause of his exposure and alleged injuries. On May 4, 2026,

Atalco moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against

it on the basis that it did not owe a duty to Plaintiff and, alternatively, that, even if it

did, there is no evidence it breached said duty. In support of its motion, Atalco

submitted seven exhibits, including the deposition transcripts of Plaintiff, Mr. Scaife,

Trooper Barry Domangue (the investigating officer), Nicholas Fangue and Paul

Prewitt (Atalco corporate representatives), and James Johnson (an Atalco

employee), as well as TDC’s responses to Atalco’s discovery requests with multiple

attachments, including the Atalco purchase order, the sales contract between Atalco

and TDC, and the terms and conditions governing those agreements.

In opposition, Plaintiff likewise submitted seven exhibits, including the

deposition transcripts of Plaintiff, Mr. Scaife, Trooper Domangue, Mr. Fangue, Mr.

Prewitt, and Mr. Johnson, as well as the Affidavit of Trooper Domangue and

attached incident report, which included a copy of Atalco’s standard operating

procedures. Davison also opposed Atalco’s motion and likewise submitted seven

exhibits, including the deposition transcripts of Plaintiff, Mr. Scaife, Trooper

Domangue, Mr. Fangue, Mr. Prewitt, and Mr. Johnson, as well as Plaintiff’s petition

for damages. The crux of the opposition is that Atalco owed Plaintiff a general duty

G. In failing to promulgate, implement and enforce rules and regulations pertaining
to the safe operation of the task being employed at the time of the accident which,
if they had been so promulgated, implemented and enforced, would have averred
said accident;

H. Failing to take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate the accident; and

I. Negligent implementation of policies and procedures to maintain and operate the
plant.
3

to exercise reasonable care and breached that duty by directing Mr. Scaife to leave

the unloading area before he completed the depressurization process, leading Mr.

Scaife to depart the facility with the tanker’s vent valve open after delivering the

chemical to Atalco.

The matter came for hearing before the trial court on July 6, 2026. Following

oral argument, the court ruled from the bench, finding that Atalco did owe Plaintiff

a general duty under La. C.C. art. 2315 and that there are genuine issues of material

fact as to whether Atalco breached that duty. As a result, the trial court denied

summary judgment, assigning the following reasons:

[I] think the fact that we’ve been here for an hour, going back
and forth on some of this stuff, I think that the crux of what this Court
needs to determine in its mind was: Is there a duty to the Plaintiff in this
matter, or is there a legally recognized duty? And then I think if we get
past that issue, then I think just the facts of this particular case, in and
of itself, show that there are genuine issues of material fact all over the
place that need to go to a fact finder.

I don’t see anything here that’s some kind of statutory duty, but
I do believe that there is a general negligence duty that’s going to
ultimately probably result in a comparative fault determination between
Davison and Atalco, if there’s any fault found, then a comparative
analysis. But it seems like this is what this particular case comes down
to.

So, for the summary judgment that has been filed, I’m going to
deny the summary judgment on the record at this time. I am going to
find that there is at least a duty under 2315, a general negligence duty.
Based upon the standard operating procedures and just based on 2315
in and of itself, for the particular plaintiff at issue here, there is a duty
not to be exposed to these chemicals, using the standard operating
procedure and the testimony that was given to determine that it was at
least recognized by the parties here that there was some potential harm
that could be caused to a third party for the reasons that there is a
standard operating procedure on, “Let’s make sure a procedure is
followed to prevent a particular harm.”

So, the Court will find that there is a duty, that this is probably a
comparative fault case that needs to go to the fact finder, and I’m going
to deny summary judgment at this time on the record.

On July 15, 2026, the trial court issued a signed judgment denying Atalco’s

motion for summary judgment. This timely writ application followed.

4

DISCUSSION

Appellate courts review summary judgment rulings de novo, applying the

same criteria as the trial court. Millet v. Moran Foods, LLC, 23-227 (La. App. 5 Cir.

3/13/24), 384 So.3d 1074, 1076. Summary judgment is proper only when the

evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3). It is not appropriate where

the trier of fact must weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations.

Warden v. Richoux, 06-702 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/27/07), 952 So.2d 828, 832, writ

denied, 07-918 (La. 6/22/07), 959 So.2d 499.

The existence of a duty is a question of law. Louisiana recognizes an “almost

universal duty” to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to others. Rando v. ANCO

Insulations, Inc., 08-1163 (La. 5/22/09), 16 So.3d 1065, abrogated by statute on

unrelated grounds recognized in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., LLC, 23-170

(La. 10/20/23), 379 So.3d 636, reh’g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So.3d 135.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315 provides that every act of man that causes damage

to another obliges the person at fault to repair it. Article 2316 extends this principle,

providing that every person is responsible for damage occasioned not merely by his

act, but by his negligence, imprudence, or want of skill. The “no duty” defense is

“seldom appropriate” and applies only where a clear rule of law forecloses liability.

Zimko v. American Cyanamid, 03-658 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/8/05), 905 So.2d 465, 482,

writ denied, 05-2102 (La. 3/17/06), 925 So.2d 538. Here, the record contains

Atalco’s own Standard Operating Procedures requiring depressurization before

departure, testimony acknowledging that failure to depressurize would violate those

procedures, and evidence that Atalco had no designated area for depressurization

and no system to ensure compliance. These materials support the trial court’s

5

conclusion that Atalco owed a general duty of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable

harm associated with chemical releases.

The record also contains conflicting evidence regarding breach. Mr. Scaife

testified that there was nowhere at the facility for him to close the valve and no

designated blow-down area. Plaintiff and Trooper Domangue testified to prior

incidents involving venting tankers leaving the same facility, contradicting Atalco’s

claim of having no knowledge of prior issues. Atalco’s corporate representatives

acknowledged that operators did not consistently oversee unloading procedures

despite Atalco’s written requirements to do so, and the only operator on duty during

the subject incident had no recollection of the driver or what instructions were given

to him. These disputes bear directly on whether Atalco breached its duty.

On the showing made, Atalco did not meet its burden of demonstrating the

absence of genuine issues of material fact or entitlement to judgment as a matter of

law. Based on our de novo review, we find that there are genuine issues of material

fact at this time regarding whether Atalco exercised operational control, whether its

procedures were followed, whether its facility afforded a safe location to

depressurize, and whether its conduct contributed to Plaintiff’s exposure. Summary

judgment is therefore inappropriate at this time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the writ application.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 23rd day of September, 2026.

FHW
SMC
JGG

6

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 09/23/2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-C-379
E-NOTIFIED
23rd Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Cody M. Martin (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Dan Boudreaux (Respondent) Brett M. Bollinger (Relator)
Ross F. Lagarde (Respondent) Jeffrey E. McDonald (Relator)
L. Peter Englande (Relator)

MAILED
Claire A. Campbell (Respondent) Darren M. Guillot (Relator)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
365 Canal Street 406 North Florida Street
Suite 2000 Suite 2
New Orleans, LA 70130 Covington, LA 70433