Diana Smith and nine other individuals collectively, “the plaintiffs” —some of whom also asserted claims on behalf of their minor children —filed suit against the City of Conyers “the City”, Rockdale County, Georgia “the County”, Chemtura Corp. f/k/a Great Lakes Chemical Company, BioLab, Inc., and John Does 1 to 6, asserting federal and state claims against the defendants based on injuries that the plaintiffs purportedly sustained following two toxic chemical fires that occurred in April and May of 2004 at a BioLab facility. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 b 6, Chemtura and BioLab collectively, “Chemtura” moved to dismiss some of the claims brought by the plaintiffs.1 Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order indicating that it was converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and dismissing with prejudice several of the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs appeal, alleging that the trial court’s order was erroneous. We disagree and affirm. The plaintiffs allege that BioLab operates “a production and warehouse facility” in Conyers where dry chlorine pellets, calcium hypochlorite, and other chlorine-based chemicals are stored. The complaint alleges that there was a chemical fire at the BioLab facility on April 17, 2004, “which caused a toxic cloud of trichloroisocyanuric acid . . . which contaminated the surrounding areas.” On May 25, 2004, a second chemical fire occurred at the facility, which, according to the complaint, “spewed pollutants” into the residential area where the plaintiffs live. The plaintiffs allege that the fires were “caused by the improper mixing of two incompatible toxic chemicals” at the facility.
Chemtura moved to dismiss many of the claims brought by the plaintiffs, leaving other claims pending in the trial court that are not at issue on appeal.2 Following a hearing,3 the trial court entered an order —styled “Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” —converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. In the order, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the following claims: attractive nuisance; strict liability; RICO; the adult plaintiffs’ personal injury claims including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, mental and emotional pain and suffering, failure to warn, and “breach of duty” negligence4; and civil claims based on criminal statutes which included criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, assault and battery, false imprisonment, and kidnapping.
