June v. Union Carbide Corporation

577 F.3d 1234 (2009)

Facts

In 1936, D began milling vanadium and uranium. D founded the community called Uravan for the workers. D constructed homes and a number of facilities, including a medical clinic, elementary school, community center, tennis courts, and a swimming pool. D ceased operations in 1984. D produced 42 million pounds of uranium oxide. In 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency placed Uravan on the National Priorities List as an environmentally hazardous site to prioritize remedial action. Ps were diagnosed with various cancers, normally resulting from radiation exposure. Ps sued D for negligence. Ps claimed that Ds operations caused the ailments or increased their risks. Twenty-seven Ps are pursuing personal-injury claims, and 152 are pursuing only medical-monitoring claims. Ps sued under the Price-Anderson Act, which grants federal district courts jurisdiction over lawsuits 'arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident.' State law supplies the substantive law governing claims under the Act. D moved for summary judgment. D claimed the personal-injury claimants had failed to show the but-for causation required by Colorado tort law. D also argued that the medical-monitoring claims could not proceed because (1) Colorado does not recognize such a cause of action and (2) the medical-monitoring Ps had not alleged a 'bodily injury,' as required by the Price-Anderson Act. Ps argued the 'substantial factor' test requiring only that D's tortious conduct be 'a substantial contributing cause of the injury.' The district court stated that a tort claimant in Colorado must demonstrate both of two distinct components of causation: (1) that 'but for' the defendant's conduct the claimant would not have been injured and (2) that the defendant's conduct was a 'substantial factor in bringing about the injury.' Ps had submitted no evidence of but-for causation, and thus the court granted summary judgment. P appealed.