In a case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit concludes that a maritime tort plaintiff’s overdose from illegal drugs was a superseding cause of his death that was not traceable to his maritime work injury. Therefore, damages stemming from his death could not be recovered.
In Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, L.L.C., the plaintiff was injured on the job while constructing a launch site on the Mississippi River. The plaintiff’s injuries included a concussion, a fractured eye socket, and a displaced disc that required emergency surgery. He was advised additional surgeries were needed to address his complaints of pain. His prescription medication ran out, and the plaintiff tried to control his pain with over-the-counter medication while he waited for an appointment with his doctor.
One day, the plaintiff’s mother found him unconscious from what a pathologist determined was an overdose of street fentanyl mixed with Xylazine, a horse tranquilizer not available for human use. The autopsy revealed his blood contained more than six times what is considered a lethal dose of fentanyl.
The plaintiff’s estate brought claims against various defendants under the Jones Act and general Maritime Law and subsequently added a claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Following a bench trial, the District Court Judge awarded damages, including damages for wrongful death.
The Court of Appeal reversed. The court applied the “superseding cause doctrine” to its proximate cause analysis. The court found that where the defendant’s negligence in fact substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, but the death was actually brought about by a later cause of independent origin that was not foreseeable, the superseding cause doctrine applies.
While the court noted that few federal courts have addressed the issue of overdose from illegal drugs as a superseding cause, various state court cases had. The court found those cases that found ingesting illegal drugs to be a superseding cause to be persuasive. Citing its own precedent on the superseding cause doctrine, the court noted that it “is predicated on the notion that there must be some terminus somewhere, short of eternity, at which the second party becomes responsible in lieu of the first.” Noting that foreseeability is a continuum, the court added that “at some point, there is no causation as a matter of law.”
References:
Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, L.L.C., 159 F.4th 297 (5th Cir. 2025)