You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Bixby v. KBR, Inc.

Citations: 893 F. Supp. 2d 1067; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126970; 2012 WL 3862726Docket: No. CV 3:09-632-PK

Court: District Court, D. Oregon; September 4, 2012; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a lawsuit initiated by members of the Oregon National Guard against KBR and related entities, alleging negligence and fraud due to exposure to sodium dichromate while stationed at a water plant in Iraq. The plaintiffs claim that KBR failed to disclose the presence and hazards of the chemical, resulting in harm. The court addressed various jurisdictional challenges and denied motions to dismiss, asserting personal jurisdiction over KBR. In addressing summary judgment motions, the court evaluated the sufficiency of evidence regarding fraud claims, focusing on whether KBR made false representations about the chemical's safety. The court also examined the negligence allegations, considering whether KBR owed a duty of care under its contract, Task Order 3, which included environmental assessments and safety protocols. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning both the fraud and negligence claims, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment and allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscores the complexities of contractual duties and tort claims in the context of military operations and contractor obligations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Duty to Warn under Oregon Law

Application: The court explored whether KBR had a duty to warn the plaintiffs based on their control of Qarmat Ali and the hazardous conditions present.

Reasoning: They argue that KBR's control of the premises made it liable as an occupier, triggering a duty to warn under Oregon law.

Fraud under Oregon Law

Application: The court evaluated whether plaintiffs established the elements of fraud, focusing on misrepresentations made by KBR regarding sodium dichromate contamination.

Reasoning: To establish a fraud claim under Oregon law, plaintiffs must provide clear and convincing evidence supporting nine elements: 1) a representation; 2) its falsity; 3) its materiality; 4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; 5) intent for the representation to be acted upon; 6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; 7) reliance on its truth; 8) the right to rely; and 9) resultant injury.

Negligence and Duty of Care in Contractual Contexts

Application: The court analyzed whether KBR owed a duty of care under Task Order 3, considering arguments about KBR’s responsibilities for environmental safety at Qarmat Ali.

Reasoning: Plaintiffs accuse KBR of failing to conduct site assessments and monitor air quality and soil contamination, which allegedly led to their exposure to sodium dichromate.

Oregon's Foreseeability Standard in Negligence

Application: The court considered whether KBR's actions posed a foreseeable risk of harm under Oregon's general foreseeability principles.

Reasoning: Even if no specific duty existed under Task Order 3, plaintiffs assert that liability could arise from the general foreseeability standard in Oregon law.

Summary Judgment Standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Application: The court denied summary judgment as factual disputes remained, requiring trial resolution.

Reasoning: Summary judgment is deemed appropriate when there are no genuine material factual disputes, as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), and is not suitable if factual issues remain for trial.