Read the compelte article and watch the video, 16 dead after 'devastating' blast at Tennessee explosives plant, sheriff says, from ABC News.

According to the article, a recent "devastating" blast at a Tennessee explosives manufacturing plant is believed to have left 16 people dead.

Sheriff Chris Davis’s Press Conference

At a press conference, Humphreys County Sheriff Chris Davis said authorities had narrowed down the number of workers missing after the massive blast to 16.

"At this time, we have not located any survivors, and we are making the assumption that all are deceased at this time," Davis said.

Earlier, authorities had said 18 people remained unaccounted for after the blast. However, the sheriff said that two people, whose vehicles and belongings were found at the scene, were later determined not to be on site at the time of the explosion.

Cause of Explosion Not Yet Determined

The cause of the explosion has not yet been determined, according to officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the National Center for Explosives Training and Research.

From Search and Rescue to Recovery

At a briefing, Davis said the search had transitioned from a search and rescue into a recovery effort.

"It's a great loss to our communities," Davis said while holding back tears. "We are dealing with explosions, and I would say at this time, we're dealing with remains."

Davis said officials are now in the process of identifying the remains and are using cellphone data to determine whose devices were at the site at the time of the blast.

"As we get into this, we find it more devastating than we thought initially," he said.

Davis emphasized that the investigation is a "slow, methodical" process due to the nature of the scene and the volatility of the chemicals currently present.

Certified Explosive Specialists and Bomb Technicians Assist Law Enforcement

Certified explosive specialists and bomb technicians with the ATF were also at the scene to help law enforcement.

Authorities said they would be conducting some controlled explosions to clear out the dangerous materials currently at the scene, so they can safely continue the investigation and recovery efforts.

After the blast, four to five people were brought to hospitals, according to the sheriff, who did not detail their injuries.

Asked to describe the building where the explosion occurred, Davis said, "There's nothing to describe. It's gone. It's probably been one of the most devastating situations that I've been on in my career."

A “Very Big” Investigation

The sheriff said during an earlier briefing that this is a "very big investigation."

"This is not going to be something that we're going to be like a car wreck or something like that, that we're just going to clean up the debris and leave. We're going to probably be here for a few days," he said.

"We're trying to take as much time as is needed right now. We're prioritizing people that are involved, their families and trying to be very compassionate toward them," he continued.

Accurate Energetic Systems

Accurate Energetic Systems manufactures explosives and energetic devices for the military, aerospace, demolition and mining industries, according to its website.

Its customers include the Defense Department and Homeland Security, according to the Association of the United States Army.

Residents Recount the Explosion

A McEwen resident who lives several miles from the plant said she felt her whole house shake.

"It felt like our house had some kind of explosion," Lauren Roark told the media. "I jumped out of bed, asked my husband, 'What was that?'"

Roark found what she believes to be debris from the explosion in her yard -- "big chunks of insulation-looking stuff" -- which she reported to authorities.

Kadi Arnold, who also lives in McEwan, told the media she would sometimes hear explosions from the plant, which is about 4 miles from her home, but "knew this one wasn't normal."

"The explosion was so loud and shook my home, I literally thought the back of my house had exploded," she said.

"Once I realized it wasn't my home, I immediately knew something terrible had happened at AES," she said, adding the community is in "shock."

"We're a pretty tight-knit community and we're all just devastated and heartbroken," she said.

Discussion Questions

  1. Describe the following terms and concepts: (a) negligence; (b) negligence per se; (c) res ipsa loquitur; (d) comparative negligence; (e) assumption of the risk; and (f) strict liability.

    Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do under the same or similar circumstances. To prove negligence, a plaintiff must establish, by the greater weight (i.e., a preponderance) of the evidence that:

    (a) The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care;
    (b) The defendant breached the duty of care;
    (c) The defendant proximately caused the plaintiff harm; and
    (d) The plaintiff sustained damages (economic, physical, or both) as a result.

    Negligence per se is a legal doctrine in tort law that allows a plaintiff to prove negligence automatically if the defendant violated a law or regulation designed to protect people from the type of harm that occurred.

    To prove negligence per se, a plaintiff must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

    (a) The defendant violated a law or regulation;
    (b) The law was intended to protect against the type of harm that occurred;
    (c) The plaintiff is within the class of people the law was designed to protect; and
    (d) The violation caused the plaintiff injury or damages.

    Res ipsa loquitur (Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”) is a legal doctrine in tort law that allows a court or jury to infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury, even without direct evidence of the defendant’s conduct, because such events normally do not occur without negligence.

    To invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must usually establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

    (a) The event would not ordinarily happen without negligence;
    (b) The instrumentality or agent that caused the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant; and
    (c) The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause of the accident.

    Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in tort law that allocates fault among the parties involved in an accident or injury. When both the plaintiff and the defendant are partially at fault, this rule allows the plaintiff to still recover damages, but reduces the amount based on their share of the blame.

    Assumption of the risk is a legal defense in tort law where a defendant argues that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the dangers associated with a certain activity and should therefore not be allowed to recover damages for resulting injuries.

    To successfully invoke the assumption of the risk doctrine, the defendant must establish that the plaintiff:

    (a) Knew of the risk involved;
    (b) Understood the nature and extent of the risk; and
    (c) Voluntarily chose to accept it.

    Strict liability is a legal doctrine where a party is held legally responsible for damages or injury, regardless of fault, intent, or negligence.

    In strict liability cases, the focus is not on how careful the defendant was, but simply on whether their actions or product caused harm.

    Common areas of strict liability include abnormally dangerous activities, which are activities that carry a high risk of serious harm even when precautions are taken, such as blasting with explosives.

  2. In terms of the Accurate Energetic Systems employees who died in the explosion, are their claims exclusively workers’ compensation cases, or can they instead be resolved in the Tennessee civil court system? Explain your response.

    Based on the information available thus far in the investigation, it is your author’s opinion that the claims of the employees who died in the explosion are exclusively workers’ compensation cases.

    Workers’ compensation is an exclusive remedy for employees injured or killed in work-related accidents in Tennessee. Under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-108, when an employee is injured on the job, their claim must be resolved through the Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, not in the civil court system.

    One noted exception to the “exclusive remedy” rule is if the employer’s conduct was intentional (i.e., not merely negligent), but again, no evidence has been produced thus far that would indicate the employer’s conduct was either intentional, or rose to the level of intent through extremely reckless or grossly negligent action or inaction.

    In Tennessee, if a worker dies because of a work-related injury or illness, their dependents may be entitled to death benefits under the state’s workers’ compensation system. These benefits are outlined in the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act, primarily under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-210 and related sections.

    In Tennessee, workers’ compensation death benefits are weekly payments made to certain eligible dependents of the deceased worker, including a surviving spouse, minor children, incapacitated adult children, and other dependent relatives in certain circumstances (e.g., parents).

    If there is one dependent (e.g., a spouse), the payment is 50 percent of the deceased worker’s average weekly wage.

    If there are two or more dependents (e.g., a spouse and children) the payment is 66 2/3rds percent of the deceased worker’s average weekly wage.

    Maximum total benefits cannot exceed the state maximum benefit rate set annually by the Tennessee Department of Labor (as of July 1, 2025, the maximum weekly benefit for workers’ compensation in Tennessee is $1,426.70), and benefits typically continue until the dependent(s) no longer qualify (e.g., a spouse remarries, or a child turns 18 or finishes schooling).

    Employers or their insurance carriers must also pay up to $10,000 for reasonable burial and funeral expenses.

    Your author must emphasize that as of the preparation of the content of this newsletter, the investigation into the Accurate Energetic Systems explosion continues. Such an investigation may uncover evidence that might rise to the level of employer intent (again, either through extreme recklessness or gross negligence on the part of the employer). Such evidence might allow the plaintiffs to file their cases (alleging wrongful death) in Tennessee civil court, which could provide the decedents’ estates and dependents a much more substantial recovery compared to workers’ compensation benefits.

  3. In terms of the Accurate Energetic Systems employees who died in the explosion, if any of their cases are addressed in civil court, what would be the likely outcome of those cases? (In your response, address the applicability or non-applicability of the terms and concepts set forth in Video 2, Discussion Question 1 above).

    As previously addressed in Video 2, Discussion Question 2 above, workers’ compensation is an exclusive remedy in Tennessee, so responding to this question requires making a significant assumption. However, assuming that any of the cases are tried in civil court, the doctrines of negligence, negligence per se, and/or res ipsa loquitur might come into play, given the nature of the explosion, and the realization that such tragedies often occur because the defendant was negligent (for example, the defendant violated one or more of the specific safety standards mandated for its industry by the Occupational Safety and Health Act).

    There is no evidence yet revealed (again, the results of the disaster investigation are still pending) that any of the deceased workers were comparatively negligent or assumed the risk.

    The doctrine of strict liability might apply if the cases are tried in civil court, since the very nature of the defendant Accurate Energetic Systems’ business (manufacturing explosives and energetic devices for the military, aerospace, demolition and mining industries) was inherently dangerous.

    In short, if the deceased employees’ claims are litigated in civil court, the doctrines addressed in response to Video 2, Discussion Question 1 above would, taken as a whole, appear to favor the plaintiffs. Attorneys for the deceased employees will likely pursue all potential avenues for recovery, particularly civil litigation in lieu of worker’s compensation benefits.