
    In re: 1993 EXXON COKER FIRE. Andre Aaron; Wendell Aaron; Brenda Abrams; Martha Adcock; Dorothy D. Addison, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Ayanna Abadie, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Adlean McAlope, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-30821.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 24, 2009.
    Bruno & Bruno, Roy Francis Amedee, Jr., New Orleans, LA Joseph M. Bruno, David S. Scalia, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Bec-nel Law Firm, Reserve, LA, Rebecca A. Cunard, Cunard Reis Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Denham Springs, LA, William Hugh Sib-ley, Sibley Law Firm, Greensburg, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Alan James Berteau, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

After an explosion at a plant owned and operated by Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon Mobil”), residents living in the area sued, claiming that the company was strictly liable for the accident. After a bench trial, the district court decided that the faulty piping in the plant did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiffs, none of whom was killed or injured by the blast.

We have reviewed the briefs and have heard the arguments of counsel. We have consulted pertinent parts of the record and have researched the applicable law. The district court accurately employed the proper test and committed no error, much less any clear error, in finding no unreasonable risk of harm. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in any eviden-tiary ruling.

The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its comprehensive and persuasive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated July 18, 2008. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     