25 . In addition, the Class's claims on the merits are complicated by various defenses. BP claims immunity under both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Tort Act, and asserts that Plaintiffs' state and maritime law claims are preempted by federal law because it was following directives from the FOSC to implement a comprehensive federal response scheme created by the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and the National Contingency Plan. BP would also argue that its decisions related to, for example, the training and protection of workers and that the use of the dispersants were all done with the input and approval of the government, and were therefore reasonable and cannot form the basis for any liability. 26 . See, e.g., Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 50 So.3d 1251, 1256 (La.2010) (<HOLDING>); Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 89 So.3d 307
holding that it is within the courts discretion to award both reinstatement and punitive damages for violation of  2114 although finding that the district courts decision not to award such remedies did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding there was no abuse of discretion where although the district court did not discuss the relationship that the damages awarded  had to the damages  sought the district courts opinion made clear that it was well aware of this relationship recognizing recovery under common law for tort damages that are proven to be reasonably foreseeable damages of ones tortious acts holding that trial courts awards of 1500 to 3500 to plaintiffs exposed to a chemical leak were a clear abuse of discretion given that the damages proven such as eye nose and throat irritations are not unlike the symptoms suffered by persons afflicted with common seasonal allergies  and might be characterized as mere annoyances reducing damages to 100 to 500 holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages