Judge Bowen and Plaintiff Respond to Union Carbide's Recusal Motion in $322 Million Smith County Asbestos Verdict Case

I previously discussed Union Carbide's Motion to Recuse Judge Bowen from hearing further proceedings in the Smith County asbestos drilling mud case that resulted in a $322 million verdict. In July, the Mississippi Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the case pending its decision on the recusal issue.

Here is the plaintiff's response brief filed with the Supreme Court. The plaintiff's main argument is that Union Carbide waived its recusal request by failing to timely assert the motion. Judge Bowen disclosed that his father was exposed to asbestos before the trial. The brief states:

Union Carbide was given these facts before trial. Despite the fact that Union Carbide and Conoco Phillips had six lawyers in Raleigh, along with a Research Squad laden with laptops, printers, and a comprehensive database which managed to track down detailed private data of several hundred venire members, they claim they were unable to determine anything about Judge Bowen's parents until after trial. In light of the presence of the Research Squad, a half-dozen lawyers, and seemingly infinite resources to scour the data of Smith County residents, this argument is not credible.

The plaintiff also contends that no reasonable person would question Judge Bowen's impartiality.

Here is Judge Bowen's supplemental response in the Supreme Court. Judge Bowen states that he didn't know that his father ever had an asbestos claim.

My Take:

Six lawyers at trial? And a Research Squad? Outstanding. I envision the Research Squad entering the courthouse every day dressed in camo with laptops and printers strapped to their backs.

One time back in the day I was 5th chair at a trial. I watched the whole trial from the third row of the gallery. It was fun—in a way. I was billing hours and learning about trial practice with absolutely no pressure. I ate like a king and slept like a baby at night. It was bit like going back to NITA for a week, except I didn't have to do anything and the trial was for real. I'm the type of lawyer who thinks that I should always be the one first chair at a trial, so I couldn't have made a career out of 5th  chair. But it was fun to do once.   

  

Directed Verdict for Defendant in Hinds County Breach of Contract Case

On Tuesday Hinds County Circuit Judge Malcolm Harrison directed a verdict for the defendant in Brown v. Anderson.

The case was a breach of contract case where the plaintiffs (the Browns) sued James Anderson over a house that Anderson sold to the Browns. At the closing, Mr. Brown signed a document—the only document that he signed—stating that he had conducted a walk-thru of the house and found that all electrical, plumbing and HVAC were functioning. The Browns knew that they could have the home inspected before the closing, but did not.

Three weeks after the closing, the Browns hired a home inspector who found numerous alleged problems with the home's electrical, plumbing and HVAC. After the sale, the Browns lived in the house for four years without paying a house note, insurance or taxes until the house was foreclosed by the lender.

The Browns sued Anderson for breach of contract and tortious breach of contract. The Browns sought $90,000 in economic damages (sale price of the house) and personal injury damages. Anderson's defense was that the Browns did not prove a defect at the time of the sale and signed a document at the closing that stated that there were no defects.

The plaintiffs rested on the second day of trial and Judge Harrison granted Anderson's motion for directed verdict. Judge Harrison agreed with Anderson that the Browns failed to establish a prima facie case of breach of contract or tortious breach of contract.

Pieter Teeuwissen of Jackson represented Anderson. Anderson is an employee of the City of Jackson and Teeuwissen, who is the City Attorney, represented Anderson on a pro bono (free) basis.

David McCarty and Drew Martin (?- not Drew Malone as earlier reported) of Jackson represented the plaintiffs.