- 30 -
with the testimony of the farmers and was influenced by it.10
He did not "rubber stamp" the agreement, but made specific
findings on the record approving the settlement. At the recorded
hearing the judge specifically found that the claim of negligent
infliction of emotional distress was the most serious claim and
that the settlement based upon it was appropriate.
Respondent also relies on Every v. IRS, 74 AFTR 2d 94-5614,
94-2 USTC par. 50,478 (W.D. Wash. 1994), affd. without published
opinion 51 F.3d 279 (9th Cir. 1995). The taxpayers, commercial
salmon fishermen, sought a refund for taxes paid as the result of
a settlement against Exxon for damages suffered as a result of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The court held
that, while their claim sounded in tort, it did not arise from an
injury to the person in the traditional tort sense. Rather, it
was economic in nature, to redress the loss of plaintiffs'
livelihood from fishing. The court drew an analogy to the loss a
farmer might suffer whose crop is destroyed by a crop duster
negligently using DDT. The brief opinion of the District Court
discloses the facts only in broad outline, and the affirmance is
by unpublished opinion. Here, in contrast, (1) the agreement is
unambiguous as to the reason for the payment, (2) petitioners
claimed emotional distress in nearly every cause of action in the
10 Knevelbaard was one of the dairymen whose depositions
were taken in the milk producers action.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011