Defense Verdict in Claiborne County Silica Trial Oral Argument Today in Drilling Mud Verdict Appeal
HarrisMartin is reporting that last week a Claiborne County jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of Empire Abrasive Equipment Corp. in a silica trial. According to the portion of the article that I have access to:
A jury in Claiborne County, Miss., has found for the sole trial defendant in the latest silica injury trial, apportioning any liability equally between the plaintiff and "Unnamed Parties," HarrisMartin is reporting.
In the first case against Empire Abrasive Equipment Corp. to go to trial, jurors found that its "ricochet" protective hood played no role in injuries to a former sandblaster.
I will report more information on this verdict if it becomes available.
In other news, the Mississippi Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for 1:30 p.m. this afternoon in the 2010 Jones County asbestos drilling mud case that resulted in a $15 million jury verdict. The arguments can be viewed live via web cast here at the Supreme Court's website.
So out of the last 3 silica trials that I've heard about involving Porter Malouf and Allen Smith, that's 2 defense verdicts and a $75,000 verdict in Claiborne County which is essentially a defense verdict. Hope they are getting good settlements with these other defendants.
So the verdict form had a blank for "Unnamed Parties"? Really?
Selmon v. Empire et al. Jury exonerated Empire. Only defendant remaining at trial. Assessed fault 50% to the plaintiff and other parties. And then made an empty award of $1.7 million in damages.
Case involved a non-airfed blasting hood. [Whatever that is.]
Shannon, you look at a lot of verdict forms. Is it common to ask the jury to allocate fault to "unnamed parties" or whatever?
Anderson. I haven't seen this form. That would be. I've seen it in Jones County with lines for 20 separate settled defendants. I suspect the report we are referring to is incorrect. When I know, I will update it here.
And moot in this case as Empire exonerated. I'd like ton see of the instructions were badly worded tonallow the empty award of damages or did the jury disregard them.
A non-airfed hood is basically a canvas hood with the face part cut out. Its intended use is to protect against materials that ricochet during sandblasting. The big knock on some of these hoods is that they were advertised as "blasting" hoods, when they provided no respiratory protection at all for sandblasters. Airfed hoods provide clean air to the blaster through a hose and are proper for use in sandblasting.
More on the case:
A Claiborne County jury found that Benard Selmon was entitled to $1.7 million in damages from contracting silicosis, a lung disease caused by silica dust, but decided that the only defendant in the case was not responsible. Selmon was suing Empire Abrasive Equipment Corp., which made a protective hood that workers wore. Empire’s attorneys successfully argued that the helmet works when used in conjunction with a respirator, attorney Ron Peresich said.
They probably settled with a dozen or so defendants, then went to trial against the one hold out to prove a point. After a few more of those "victories," Empire Abrasive will probably enter into a global settlement agreement which ends up costing them less in the long run than trying every case. Another billing cow slaughtered.