I’m finding myself with a bit more time for Doping today than I expected, so here is the thread.
For a brief summary, I’ve spent the last 3 weeks hearing testimony and deliberating on a civil case. We returned a verdict for the defense yesterday. The case was wrongful death of an adult and strict liability. Cause of death was mesothelioma and the defense was a valve manufacturer that provided asbestos-containing valves to the Navy in the early 40’s.
He died in 2006 at the age of 74 (although they did present a video deposition of the decedent) and left a widow, 3 children and other grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Over the course of the trial we heard testimony from Occupational Health doctors, Industrial Hygenists, Pathologists, Economists, a Navy Admiral, a Corporate Rep for the defendant and from the family.
I’m not sure what details people would want to know, so feel free to ask away.
Nope. I was completely honest on the 7 page questionaire. (there were something like 60 questions on the pre-voir dire questionaire) I was one of the first 20 people called from the pool and they actually only asked me one question directly in voir dire. They asked me about my aunt who went through breast cancer a couple years ago and I answered that her experience would not color my views in a case.
The problem I always had with asbestos cases is the “culpability” aspect. Did manufacturers back then know that asbestos was that dangerous? The stuff’s sort of a timebomb from what I gather, so how could anyone have forseen its impact?
That was one of the major items. The timebomb description is pretty close, the latency period from asbestos exposure to mesothelioma can be from 20-80 years. The other side is that the law simply requires that the item used be able to cause harm. There are other medical problems asbestos can cause, namely asbestosis (scarring of the lungs), pleural plaque (a kind of scarring of the pleura, or lining around the lung) and lung cancer. Those things were all documented between 1898 and 1935. The link to mesothelioma was made in the 60’s.
My honest belief was that the plaintiff should have won. What got my vote the other way was was a question on the verdict form that asked if the company ‘knew or should have reasonably known about the risks’. The word reasonable is what got me.
The ship where the asbestos exposure occured was launched in 46, the keel laid in 44 and most likely the materials and items were ordered around 42. I made a timeline of the studies and articles that were brought up in court from 1898 to 1942 and concluded that the risks were knowable, in a general sense. But looking at that list I also had to conclude that in 1942 it was not reasonable to expect that manufacturer to have the knowledge.
The main question is what was knowable at that time. It was pretty well agreed that they didn’t know. The sticking point comes in how much weight you give articles and some studies as opposed to epidemiological or cohort studies. The cohort studies didn’t start until the 70’s. (I believe a study by Dr Selikov in 78 was the first but I don’t have my notes in front of me) The other problem is that a number of the jurors honestly believed that there was zero potential risk from the use of those valves.
We were specifically instructed to not take that into account. The only place that age is applicable in this case would be in the awarding of damages. You can account for expected life expectancy (from the CDC for the year of death) to extrapolate things like lost earnings.
What did you think about your fellow jurors? Do you have an opinion, based on your experience being picked, on the type of individual who successfully makes it into the jury pool? Did they pick any lawyers?
We had an interesting mix. 3 of us are in insurance, an engineer, a cop, a teacher, lots of age and racial diversity. As well as one girl that had gone to law school (georgetown) but didn’t practice and now works as a writer. One thing that was interesting when it was all over and we were chatting with the attorneys in the hall was that the plaintiff gambled on keeping the engineer in exchange for keeping the lawyer. They assumed the defense would strike the lawyer and they were saving a strike for the engineer. Sadly they lost that gamble and both stayed. The engineer ended up being a big influence in swinging it the defenses way.
It’s hard to tell otherwise why they picked the way they did.
May I ask the name of the admiral? Barrinng that, to what command was he attached? Or barring that, what branch of the sevice is he a member of – medical branch; line officer – surface, subsurface, flight; JAG, etc.
We were not instructed to not reveal such info, in fract the judge said that after the case we could write books if we wanted. (I don’t want)
Retired Rear Admiral Roger Horne, he was a mechanical engineer holding an MS in Mech engineering as well as an MBA. He held various positions at different shipyards and as chief engineer on the USS Osborne. Prior to retirement in 1991 he was the deputy commander of shipyards and design. (I know that’s not the right department name, but it’s what I wrote in my notes…)
The ship that our plaintiff served on was the USS Manchester.
Thanks, Antinor01, for your service to the community and your efforts towards attaining justice. I’ve been involved in litigation for a long time, incl. many jury trials (both as counsel and now as a magistrate); I’ve long wanted to serve on a jury but have never even be summoned.
Some questions, if I may:
Did you take a straw vote at the very outset of your deliberations, to see which way everyone was leaning?
Was it difficult to select a foreman?
How would you describe the judge’s role in the case?
Were the jury instructions helpful, baffling, or something else?
Were you given a copy of them, or just have them read to you?
Were there any personality conflicts among the jurors?
How long did you deliberate?
Any holdouts who really had to be persuaded/leaned on?
Did you find any fellow jurors hung up on points or issues that seemed irrelevant to you?
Was it a unanimous verdict?
Were you satisfied by the jury’s accommodations in the courthouse?
What about your experience was just about what you expected?
What, if anything, was dramatically different?
Lastly, I have to say, USS Manchester was a handsome warship.
You’re welcome. It was a pleasure to serve, although I wish it hadn’t taken quite as long as it did.
No. The instructions given by the court were very clear that strong opinions should not be given at the beginning. What we did was have each person give a general outlook on the case, but asked that everyone stick to the instruction given.
It took about 3 minutes. We took 3 nominations and voted by simple majority. (It was nearly me, I’m so glad it wasn’t!)
Basically as a referee.
Yes, yes and yes. Mostly they were helpful, but a few took a bit of reading and rereading to really understand. One point was about punative damages. We had one instruction saying that we weren’t to consider them, but another gave instruction on how to include them.
We had a copy in the jury room.
Nothing really huge. We got along quite a bit better than I would have expected 14 (12 jurors and 2 alts) random strangers to. Of course that was outside the jury room, once we got to deliberations…well it was a different story.
2 full days. 9-after 5 one day with a working lunch and only 2 10 minute breaks, 830-after 5 the next day.
We had a verdict form with 18 questions and were stuck at 8-4 on the 6th one. We advised the judge that we felt deadlocked, but from what we found out after it seems the attorneys persuaded him to not declare it a hung jury at that point. I was one of the 4 and made a compromise with the ‘other side’ to bring 5 of them to our side. The compromise was that I conceded their point on question 12 (referenced in an earlier post) to bring a 9-3 that finally favored the defense. Even though my final vote went against what I felt should be the result, the questions presented led me to that vote.
Yes. Several people were stuck on the concept of caused versus contributed. They didn’t want to hold the defendent liable because they didn’t believe they ‘caused’ the mesothelioma. Try as I might, I couldn’t get across to them that all we were asked to show was contribution.
Not at all. (See above)
I only sat in the jury assembly room for a few minutes, but it was decent. The jury deliberation room is awful though. Tiny little room with only a conference table with 12 chairs, a corkboard and a chalkboard. No windows or anything else. I hated being in that room.
I went in with a decent understanding of the process, so there weren’t a lot of surprises.
Getting picked for a jury actually. I went in thinking that my insurance background would get me removed.