A MIND BLOGGING CASE GOES TO THE JURY

          After five long months of trial testimony, a civil case in the Baltimore County Circuit Court was submitted to the jury, to begin deliberations on Friday, March 6. The eighty-eight plaintiffs in the case are claiming damages caused by a gasoline leak that released in excess of 25,000 gallons of product in their neighborhood. The defendant is ExxonMobil, the entity the plaintiffs are claiming caused the leak. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I will tell you that this firm has represented ExxonMobil, and its predecessors, Exxon and Mobil, for many years here in New Hampshire.   The jury must decide whether the claim is worth the billion dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) the plaintiffs have asked the jury order ExxonMobil Corporation to pay.

          It may take the jury quite a while to reach a verdict. There are reams of testimony taken over the five months the case was tried. Then there are the jury verdict form issues. The jury must fill out a separate verdict form for each property owner, which means that they must prepare 88 separate verdict forms! The findings with regard to each form are substantial as well. One of the first things the jury must decide is whether they agree with plaintiffs that there was “fraud by concealment” by ExxonMobil, which would then lead them to consideration of punitive damages. (As I discussed in an earlier blog, New Hampshire has both case law and statutory law forbidding punitive damages, but Maryland allows such damages.)

          Jurors will then determine if there is causal connection between ExxonMobil's actions and the plaintiffs' damages. If so, then the jurors will have to determine the diminution in value of each property as well as the validity of plaintiffs' requests for medical monitoring. The final issue relates to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress advanced by plaintiffs. As only those plaintiffs who testified at the trial can claim that element of damages, approximately a dozen verdict forms do not contain the emotional distress claim.

          Some 18 hours total was spent on closing arguments alone by trial counsel. That is generally considered the equivalent to three days of trial, and that was just for the closing arguments. The size of the release, the volume of testimony and the tasks facing the jury are all very large in this trial. One of the many aspects of the trial which has made it an interesting case to follow is the unusual way in which the property damage claims have been combined with the personal injury claims. While one often finds property damage and personal injury in the same claim, such as in an auto accident, this is a good example of plaintiffs’ counsel working creatively to combine a large number of property damage claims and adding the risk of personal injury claims and punitive damages to raise the stakes. So far, neither side has blinked and the jury is now charged to make its decision.   

Timothy G. Kerrigan is a director at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His present practice focuses on complex legal situations both in the litigation and in the ADR context. He is available as a litigator, client advocate or as an ADR neutral. Mr. Kerrigan is certified by the State Office of Mediation and Arbitration both as a mediator and as an arbitrator. You can reach Attorney Kerrigan by e-mail at tkerrigan@nashualaw.com.

To read additional Litigation Articles, Click Here.

To return to the Legal Articles Home Page, Click Here.

To return to the Hamblett & Kerrigan Home Page, Click Here.