The Reversal in a Far-Reaching Toxic Exposure Case
/
In a far-reaching toxic exposure case, the District Court's dismissal was reversed on appeal when the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled in favor of the injured plaintiffs.
The Case: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al.
The Court: Nevada Supreme Court
The Case No.: 85569
The Plaintiff: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company.
The plaintiffs, Melinda Adkins et al., worked at Clark County Government Center (CCGC), where they were allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals. The exposure eventually led to personal injury and wrongful death claims after numerous Clark County employees contracted terminal cancer, and the exposure led to multiple employee deaths. According to the complaint, toxic chemicals were released on a Union Pacific property. After the CCGC opened on the same property in 1995, their on-site workers started to get sick. Workers also noticed black soot accumulating in air vents and workstations. However, Clark County reassured their workers - insisting the site was safe. In 2020, experts established the connection between the CCGC workers' illnesses and the toxic exposure linked back to when Union Pacific Railroad Company owned the property. Plaintiffs argue that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and toxic exposure until 2020 when experts established the connection. Wrongful death claims continued to arbitration.
In District Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.
In Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiffs' first amended complaint was dismissed after the court concluded that the claims were time-barred since the statute didn't specify discovery-rule tolling. (The court ruled that the discovery rule didn't apply to the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).
In Appellate Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.
On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision after a review. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule (NRS 11.190(4)(e) could apply despite the specific language referencing discovery-rule tolling emphasizing that fairness and justice require a claim not accrue until the claimant is aware or "should be" aware of the possibility of a claim based on reasonable diligence. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs raised issues of fact about their awareness of the cause of action and the concealment of relevant information (on the part of the defendant). The Supreme Court also found the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling and remanded the case for additional proceedings.
Supreme Court of Nevada's Reversal: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company
The Nevada Supreme Court's reversal of the district court's dismissal in Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. made it possible for the plaintiffs to proceed with their personal injury and wrongful death based on toxic exposure claims. Based on the Supreme Court's findings, the case could proceed to discovery and trial. The findings on appeal emphasized the applicability of the discovery rule and equitable tolling. The decision allowing the plaintiffs' claims to move forward despite the initial statute of limitations dismissal was a notable victory for the plaintiffs that reinforced the protections the law offers for individuals harmed by corporate negligence.
If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
