Confusing Plaintiff Verdict in Claiborne County Silica Trial

A Claiborne County jury returned a confusing plaintiff verdict Friday afternoon in the silica trial I have been following. The jury's total verdict awarded total damages of $750,000 and apportioned 10% fault to the defendant MSA. So the plaintiff gets $75,000 right? It's not that simple.

The plaintiff's proof and request was for $119,000 in economic damages. But the jury awarded $650,000 in economic damages.

The jury awarded $100,000 in non-economic damages. The plaintiff requested $2 million in non-economic damages.

The fact that the jury awarded much less in non-economic damages than the plaintiff requested usually wouldn't be a big deal. It happens a lot. But the jury awarding much more than the plaintiff requested in economic damages is odd.  It looks to me like the jury got confused filling out the verdict form and got the economic and non-economic amounts reversed.   

The defense has an argument that the $650,000 in non-economic damages must be reduced to $119,000 consistent with the proof. That would reduce the total judgment to around $21,000. The plaintiff may argue that the court should order a new trial on damages due to the confusing verdict. The defendant will want no part of that.

The defendant may consider putting up $75,000, calling it a win, and going to the house.

The plaintiff was a gentleman in his late 70's who can do 13 pull-ups and plays the trumpet. Perhaps not the best facts for a case alleging lung damage.

Prior posts on this trial are here, here and here.   

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mslitigationreview.com/admin/trackback/248680
Comments (3) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Anderson - May 16, 2011 9:20 AM

I'm 41 and I don't think I can do 13 pull-ups.

... The defendant is crazy, or receiving poor legal advice, if it doesn't pay the $75K. An appeal would eat up a good chunk of that amount, with the possibility of "winning" a new trial. You know, the way you can "win" a white elephant.

randy - May 16, 2011 10:56 AM

Anyone have a copy of the verdict form? Surely the plaintiff didn't make reference to “economic damages” and “non-economic damages.” That would invite the exact type of confusion that appears to have occurred.

Shannon Ragland - June 28, 2011 8:24 PM

Verdict form states:
Economic - $650,000
Non-Economic - $100,000

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.