## Facts

- Chemistry students from the University of Southern Maine participated in a guided tour of a nuclear power facility operated by the defendant.
- About two weeks before the tour, the facility allegedly experienced a radioactive gas leak in a primary auxiliary building caused by design flaws and faulty engineering during work on the chemical and volume control system.
- Facility officials allegedly decided to flush resin “hot spots” in a demineralizer during the scheduled student tour, knowing the procedure would release radioactive gases.
- On October 11, 1994, during the tour, the facility was allegedly repairing the leak problem and conducting the flushing procedure.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were not warned about the prior leak, the ongoing repair work, or the planned gas-releasing procedure.
- Plaintiffs received self-reading dosimeters that measured gamma radiation; employees allegedly wore dosimeters that also measured beta radiation, and plaintiffs were not provided the employee-grade devices.
- Guides allegedly led plaintiffs through an area containing radioactive gas released during the flushing procedure, resulting in exposure.
- Plaintiffs alleged measurable radiation exposure after the tour; at least one plaintiff alleged a significant reduction in white blood cell count, and others alleged stress and anxiety, including fear of future health consequences.
- Plaintiffs alleged facility personnel reassured them the exposure was not harmful and misrepresented or minimized the incident.

## Issues

1. Whether claims based on alleged radiation exposure must proceed exclusively as a federal “public liability action” under the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Price–Anderson Act, thereby displacing separate state-law causes of action.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an intentional tort claim for battery where plaintiffs alleged the defendant knowingly subjected them to radiation exposure without necessarily intending to injure them.
3. Whether the allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to support negligence-based claims and emotional distress claims under Maine law.
4. Whether alleged post-incident reassurances and minimization of exposure sufficiently stated claims for fraud/misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held the asserted nuclear-incident tort claims fell within the Price–Anderson “public liability action” framework and could proceed in federal court under that structure.
- The court rejected a categorical preemption defense that would bar tort recovery at the pleading stage simply because the conduct implicated federally regulated radiation standards.
- The court allowed core exposure-based tort theories, including battery and negligence-related claims, to proceed (treated as part of a Price–Anderson public liability action).
- The court dismissed or narrowed certain claims to the extent they were inconsistent with the federal public-liability structure or inadequately pleaded, while permitting plausibly alleged fraud/emotional distress theories to proceed in part.

## Legal Principles

- Radiation-exposure tort claims arising from a nuclear incident are litigated as a single federal “public liability action” under Price–Anderson; state tort law generally supplies the substantive rules of decision unless it conflicts with federal requirements.
- Compliance with federal nuclear regulations is not a categorical bar to a public liability action at the pleading stage; it may bear on breach, causation, or damages rather than eliminating the claim.
- Battery does not require intent to injure; intent to cause the contact (including exposure to a harmful or offensive physical force such as radiation) can satisfy the intent element when the contact is alleged to be unwanted and harmful or offensive.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations of exposure, physical effects, and resulting distress can be sufficient to plead negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress under state law, subject to proof.
- Fraud/misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress require specific pleading of the elements (including material misrepresentation and reliance for fraud, and extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED); plausibility depends on the alleged conduct and context.

## Conclusion

The court treated the students’ radiation-exposure allegations as a Price–Anderson public liability action and allowed key tort theories—particularly battery (based on intent to expose, not intent to injure) and negligence-related claims—to proceed past dismissal, while trimming claims that were inconsistent with the statutory structure or insufficiently pleaded.


Bohrmann v. Me. Yankee Atomic Power Co., 926 F. Supp. 211 (D. Me. 1996)