#Nlo nuclear plant trial#

In his November 20th order, Judge Speigel indicated that plaintiffs were claiming physical injury although no such injury was alleged in their complaint, and he dismissed all claims of the former employee.

#Nlo nuclear plant trial#

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges property damage and damage from emotional distress, but a number of the plaintiffs, including those whose claims were not held to be time barred, testified at the statute of limitations trial that they had not suffered property damage. There is substantial evidence of such changes in the record. Judge Speigel recognized the evolving nature of plaintiffs' claims in an order issued after the statute of limitations trial, stating 'both parties to this litigation appear to change their claims and defenses' as the case proceeds. 2 We decline the district court's invitation to decide the statute of limitations issue by interlocutory appeal under Rule 54(b) for the reasons discussed below.įirst, this case is simply not ready for a definitive ruling on appeal because the causes of action have not been adequately defined through the adjudication process. It then certified its judgment on the statute of limitations issue for interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b). The district court held that the statute of limitations barred entirely the actions of six of the plaintiffs and barred the action of another plaintiff in part but held that the statute of limitation did not bar the actions of three of the plaintiffs. Delivering the Nuclear Promise is a multiyear industry initiative, enabling nuclear power plants to generate electricity more efficiently, economically and. The plaintiffs also seek injunctive remedies to insure future medical check-ups and treatment. They seek $200,000,000 in damages for emotional distress arising from the fear of cancer and other radiation related diseases, as well as loss of income and injury to personal property. They assert ten different but overlapping claims ranging from negligence, strict liability and breach of contract to fraud and various other intentional torts. The plaintiffs-who worked for various periods of time for contractors and subcontractors at a nuclear plant in Fernald, Ohio (The Feed Materials Production Center) or were related to those who worked there-claim injuries resulting from nuclear radiation leaks. from an extraordinary nuclear occurrence.' 1 42 U.S.C. This is a class action brought by ten named plaintiffs under a section of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 that created federal jurisdiction for 'any public liability action arising.

Fenster, McKenna, Conner & Cuneo, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees.īefore: MERRITT, Chief Judge and JONES and NELSON, Circuit Judges. Van Wart (argued and briefed), Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, John Stephen Wirthlin, Sr., Douglas James Kurtenbach, Beirne & Hawkins, II, Frost & Jacobs, Cincinnati, OH, David M. Kircher, Kircher, Robinson, Cook, Newman & Welch, Cincinnati, OH, and Ronald Simon, Connerton, Ray & Simon, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Chesley (briefed), Paul Michael DeMarco (briefed), Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH, Arthur R. NL Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.