What to Consider if You’re Ill from a Toxic Substance in Lubbock

You might have a lawsuit on your hands; here’s your guide for how to know and what to prove

A person may be liable for a “tort,” or civil (i.e. not criminal) wrong that causes harm or injury to another person. The defendant could be a person, company, or public entity (like a government agency). If the defendant caused the injury through negligence—intentional or unintentional—the plaintiff (injured person) may file a civil lawsuit to recover damages, or costs, for their medical treatment and other expenses. 

A tort could be intentional, which is something done deliberately to cause harm; negligent, which is carelessness; or strict liability, which means the defendant is liable regardless of intent or negligence. 

And then there are toxic torts. 

A plaintiff may file a lawsuit for a toxic tort if the injury or illness was caused by exposure to a toxic substance like chemicals or pollutants because of a company or individual’s negligence. It’s a personal injury lawsuit for exposure to hazardous materials.

Lubbock toxin concerns

Davis v. City of Lubbock: Plaintiff Racquel Davis filed a lawsuit against the City after two of her horses died and a third fell ill after consuming hay she purchased from the city. The hay had been irrigated with water that allegedly contained harmful bacteria that grew because of improper harvesting. Davis claimed the City was negligent because it baled the hay before it could dry thoroughly and then failed to test for bacterial contamination. 

Ultimately, the lawsuit was dismissed because some government agencies are immune to certain types of claims. 

Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation: However, in January 2021, homeowners near Lubbock filed a lawsuit, claiming the drinking water was contaminated by toxic chemicals from Reese Air Force Base. The base was using Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) to extinguish fires that involved liquid jet fuel and petroleum. Toxins from the AFFF seeped into groundwater and contaminated drinking water in homeowners’ private wells. 

The foam included PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances), which is very effective at putting out jet fuel and petroleum fires, but is also found to accumulate in the human body and cause serious health problems. 

More than 200 private and three public wells were found to contain higher than the EPA’s Lifetime Health Advisory limit of PFAS. The lawsuit sought compensation for Lubbock residents who developed medical conditions after drinking the PFAS-contaminated water. Compensation includes treatment costs, future medical monitoring, and financial compensation for decreased property values related to the wells and toxic groundwater. 

Midland infant botulism cases: An unsettling toxic tort situation cropped up recently in Midland, about two hours south of Lubbock. Two newborns were diagnosed with botulism, which is rare but could be fatal. This is a toxin that attacks the body’s nerves and is particularly dangerous for babies; it can cause difficulty breathing and muscle paralysis. 

The alarm was raised when two newborns who lived a few blocks apart were diagnosed within a few weeks of each other. A third—in the same neighborhood—had been diagnosed with botulism a few months prior. 

Babies primarily contract botulism through food or the environment. Pediatricians caution parents not to feed babies honey in their first year of life because honey can have botulism spores; but newborns likely would not have consumed food other than breastmilk or formula. This possibility was ruled out by a Midland Health Department spokesperson. 

That leaves the environment. The bacteria that causes botulism can be found in soil and dust, and it could be stirred up in the air by windy conditions. 

The babies in Midland were treated at a Lubbock hospital because Midland hospitals did not have treatment options for this diagnosis. The causes of the botulism—considered rare—have not been determined, though they are thought to be caused by an environmental toxin.

Several years ago, residents of North and East Lubbock complained about difficulty breathing, smells and fears of long-term health effects from industrial properties located close to residential neighborhoods. At the time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that there were at least 15 businesses in Lubbock that might emit chemicals that could be dangerous to human health, and that many of these (primarily manufacturers) were located toward North Loop 289 and on the east side of Interstate 27.

The city took concerns into consideration as it developed its Comprehensive Plan for the Future (aka Lubbock 2040). Still, environmental concerns that could affect human health need to be taken seriously for any industrial project.

What is a toxic tort lawsuit?

Being concerned about a toxin isn’t enough to have grounds to file a lawsuit. 

The plaintiff must prove these elements to have a successful Lubbock toxic tort lawsuit:

1. Exposure to a harmful substance. This could include a chemical, agent, or other substance that was present at their home, workplace, or elsewhere in the environment. This could be anything they breathe, in the water they drink, a chemical in the home like lead paint, or something in the soil where they grow food, or otherwise released into the environment. 
2. The person became ill as a result of exposure to the substance. Simply being present in the environment is not enough; the plaintiff must have experts who can prove that there’s a direct link between the exposure and the illness or condition.

Types of Lubbock toxic tort lawsuits

Legal theories for Lubbock toxic tort lawsuits

Negligence

Negligence theory is the same for any personal injury. The plaintiff (injured person) must prove they were injured because the defendant’s actions lacked reasonable care to avoid harm. The lack of care must have been the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injury. 

The biggest challenge for a toxic tort is proving causation. Many symptoms people experience from exposure to toxins could be similar to symptoms they could have for other reasons. Medical experts and others will be called upon to provide testimony that the exposure was the actual cause of the person’s illness.

Strict liability

This allows a defendant to be liable even if they were not negligent. This is primarily for lawsuits that involve inherently dangerous activities or products.

In a strict liability lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s product or activity caused the illness, but it does not have to be the result of negligence. For example, if the patient falls ill from exposure to hazardous substances, it could be the result of a company’s production, transportation or disposal of the product even if it was not negligent—rather, the product was inherently dangerous.

Product liability

This applies when there’s a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn of a hazard of using the product (or instructions for how to use it safely).

Breach of warranty

A breach of warranty claim arises when a seller fails to fulfill the terms of a promise or warranty regarding the quality, condition, or performance of a product.

If you believe you’ve been affected by a toxic condition in Lubbock, you can contact a personal injury lawyer for more information and guidance about next steps and your legal options.