EAST ST. LOUIS - Duewayne Snyder of Lawrence County separately sued two defendants over the same injury claiming they both controlled a site where a live wire injured him.
Chevron Environmental Management moved to dismiss the second suit at U.S. district court in January, claiming the suits contradicted each other.
Snyder’s counsel Courtney Hughes of Carbondale responded on Jan. 22 that he pleaded the claims in the alternative.
Chevron Environmental counsel Donald Flack of Edwardsville replied on Feb. 26 that Snyder didn’t dispute that allegations in the suits were directly contradictory.
He claimed Snyder provided no case law allowing contradictory suits and Chevron Environmental couldn’t locate authority.
In 2021, Snyder worked for Entact, an environmental remediation and technical construction company in Westmont.
Entact sent him to a Superfund project at a former Texaco refinery in Lawrenceville, and his injury occurred there.
Last September, Snyder sued Trihydro, an environmental consultant in Wyoming.
In December, he sued Chevron Environmental, a California company.
Flack claimed in his motion to dismiss the Chevron Environmental suit that the suits alleged the same three counts.
He claimed Snyder stated that Trihydro directed Entact to perform work over the power line and Trihydro owed a duty to Snyder and failed to exercise reasonable care.
“In both actions, plaintiff pleads that the individual defendant subject of that action is the sole entity that was responsible and retained the right of control over Entact’s work and directed Entact and plaintiff to complete the repairs allegedly resulting in plaintiff’s incident,” he wrote.
“In neither case does plaintiff suggest that Chevron Environmental and Trihydro are both liable or were both in control over Entact and plaintiff,” he added.
Flack claimed the nature of Snyder’s claims required that one of the defendants controlled Entact’s work and Trihydro and Chevron Environmental couldn’t both exercise authority.
“While alternative theories of law may be allowed, there cannot be alternative facts,” he wrote.
Hughes responded on Jan. 22 that two suits against two defendants arising out of the same set of facts wasn’t improper or an admission against one or the other.
He claimed Snyder’s complaint against Chevron raised factual issues of contractual and practical control of the manner and methods of hazardous activities at Chevron’s work site.
“Chevron contracted with Trihydro. Chevron contracted with Entact,” he wrote.
Hughes claimed Chevron Environmental asked the court to believe Chevron signed over the entire cleanup to Entact and Trihydro without retaining control.
In a conference about the Trihydro case on that date, Beatty stated he’d discuss consolidation of the cases with Rosenstengel.
On Feb. 26, he reassigned Trihydro to Rosenstengel.
Flack replied on that date in support of his motion to dismiss, stating the admission that Snyder pleaded in the alternative provided sufficient grounds.
He claimed neither complaint made an alternative assertion.
He added that Snyder appeared to conflate the common practice of pleading alternative theories with the impermissible practice of pleading contradictory facts.