X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
These jury verdicts are reprinted courtesy ofJury Verdicts Weekly, an American Lawyer Media affiliate based in San Diego. To report a case or for more information on cases, contactJury Verdicts Weekly at( 800) 445-6823. Forms are available at www.therecorder.com/verdicts.html. FRAUD Decision: $748,004 Case: Paula Loeffler, Lorie Bischel, David Orndoff and John Newell Orndoff, individually and as beneficiaries of the Caddie Newell Orndoff Living Trust and the Orndoff Tahoe Cabin Trust v. Julie Anna Maffucci, . ka. Julia Anna Chapman, a.k.a. Julie Anna Pinkham, aka. Julie Anna Orndoff, Lawrence Pinkham, and Does 1-25, inclusive, C01-00921 Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court, Martinez Judge: David Flinn Date: 06/04/2002 Attorneys for plaintiffs: Arlene Segal of Arlene Segal, Esq. Law Offices in Walnut Creek (David Orndoff, Lorie Bischel, Paula Loeffler) Jennifer Rice and David Elefant of Walnut Creek (John Newell Orndoff) Attorneys for defense: Timothy Stock of Law Offices of Timothy Stock in Sacramento Facts: A Contra Costa County court rescinded property transfers, reformed deeds and awarded the conservator and beneficiaries of trusts established to protect an elderly incompetent more than $784,000 where one of her daughters allegedly converted her mother’s property. Several of Caddie Orndoff’s adult children, having subsequently established a conservatorship to protect their mother’s assets, sued their sister and her husband to recover funds they alleged were obtained from Orndoff by deception and conversion. They claimed the defendants took advantage of their mother, who was incompetent, to obtain loans totaling $1.1 million secured by their mother’s property, taking more than $500,000 of the proceeds for themselves. They also claimed that the errant daughter transferred their mother’s property to herself. The defendants argued that Orndoff was competent and directed them to make the loans and take the money as gifts. Injuries: The plaintiffs sought to recover their mother’s converted funds and to rescind and reform property transfers and deeds. Decision: The court awarded the plaintiffs $748,004 plus costs and fees. The improper property transfers were rescinded and deeds reformed and a constructive trust was imposed on all proceeds of the loans. Punitives: $100,000. Other/specials: $648,004. Attorneys fees and costs: $78,603 Trial length: 6 days MARITIME Verdict: $2,843,181 Case: Richard Andrews v. Nicholas Bachko Company, Inc., et al., 313438 Court: San Francisco Superior Court Judge: Anne Bouliane Date: 6/20/2002 Attorneys for plaintiff: Lyle Cavin Jr. of Law Offices of Lyle Cavin Jr. & Associates in Oakland Joseph Klobas of Sonoma David Singelstad of San Francisco Attorneys for defense: Gregory Poulos and Marc Cefelu of Cox, Wootton, Griffin, Hansen & Poulos in San Francisco Facts: A San Francisco jury in a maritime action brought under the Jones Act returned a verdict in excess of $2.8 million for a third mate injured in a fall while serving aboard the defendant’s vessel, Chesapeake Bay, a container vessel carrying ammunition, while it was in the port of Mesaieed, Doha, Qatar. The plaintiff was injured when he attempted to get off a mobile crane brought aboard the vessel to load and discharge containers in ports that did not have shore side cranes for this purpose. This crane was essentially a truck with a crane secured on top. The Anthony Crane Co., the owner and operator of the crane, provided one of its employees as crane operator. (That employee, however, was subject to the direction and control of the ship’s master while aboard the vessel.) The plaintiff was ordered by the chief mate to assist the crane operator in performing a maintenance procedure (changing fuel filters) atop the mobile crane at the time of his fall. The mariner, claiming unseaworthiness and negligence, sued his employer, defendant Nicholas Bachko Co. and the vessel owner, defendant First American Bulk Carrier. They, in turn, cross-claimed against Anthony. Injuries: When the plaintiff fell, he injured his left heel and hips on the steel deck as well as the back of his head. He was diagnosed at American Hospital in Dubai as suffering from a severely comminuted fracture and malalignment of the subtalar joint and a left calcaneus fracture. It was recommended that surgery be performed in the United States. He was transferred to a hospital in Saudi Arabia for two days before returning home. Michael Stock, M.D., of Santa Rosa, performed the surgery at Marin General Hospital in Greenbrae. Further surgical intervention for his hip problems was planned. Testimony indicated that residuals included significant physical limitations including preclusion from returning to sea, restriction to sedentary work with a provision of no prolonged standing or sitting, as well as a weight limitation of 20 pounds. Verdict: The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict for $2,843,180.51 against Bachko and First American. Cross-defendant Anthony was dismissed prior to trial. Polls: unseaworthiness 9-3, negligence 11-1, damages 9-3. Although the jury found the plaintiff 5 percent contributorily negligent, the judge barred comparative fault since the jury found that the defendants violated an OSHA regulation, 29 CFR 1918.66 (18), requiring safe access on and off the crane. Two prior mediation sessions proved fruitless. Economic damages: $855,000 Non- Economic Damages: $1.8 million. Pre-judgment interest through July 1, 2002: $152,754. Costs: $35,426.51 Demand: $899,999, CCP �998 Offer: $450,000, CCP �998 Trial length: 3 weeks. Deliberations: 3 days MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Settlement: $2,500,000 Case: Wanda Butterly and Patrick Butterly, individually, and as Guardian ad Litems for Ryan Butterly, a minor v. Michael Bleecker, M.D., Bea Haber, CNM, Tri-Valley OB-GYN Medical Group, Inc. and Doe Medical Facility, V-012081-7 Court: Superior Court of Alameda County, Hayward Judge: Bonnie Sabraw Date: 6/12/2002 Attorneys for plaintiffs: Thomas Brandi of the Brandi Law Firm in San Francisco (Patrick Butterly, Ryan Butterly, Wanda Butterly) Mylene Reuvekamp and Donald Sullivan of the Brandi Law Firm in San Francisco (Patrick Butterly, Ryan Butterly, Wanda Butterly) Attorneys for defense: D. Stuart Candland and Kristine Meredith of Craddick Candland & Conti in Danville (Bea Haber CNM, Michael Bleecker M.D., Tri-Valley OB-GYN Medical Group Inc.) Robert Slattery and Diane Kremen Colville of McNamara Dodge Ney Beatty Slattery & Pfalzer in Walnut Creek (Doe Medical Facility) Facts: A minor child and his parents settled their medical malpractice lawsuit for $2.5 million against a quartet of defendants in a case where it was alleged that the medical care given to the pregnant mother during her labor was sub-standard and caused the child’s resulting birth defects. Plaintiff Wanda Butterly was under the care of defendant Michael Bleecker, M.D., an OB/GYN, and his nurse-midwife, defendant Bea Haber, who were both employed by defendant Tri-Valley OB/GYN Medical Group Inc. As the plaintiff mother approached the 42-week mark in her pregnancy, a decision was made to induce labor. At 7:40 a.m. on May 24, 1995, the defendant doctor, who left and then returned at noon to examine her, artificially ruptured her membranes at the defendant hospital. The defendant doctor then left again, leaving the care of the plaintiff mother to the defendant nurse-midwife, who eventually also left and placed the care of the plaintiff mother with the hospital nursing staff. During the day, one of the hospital nurses administered Pitocin to induce labor. At approximately 10 p.m., the defendant nurse-midwife returned, shortly before the child was born. When the baby was delivered, he was limp, blue and not breathing. Another doctor then entered the delivery room and was able to revive the child. The plaintiffs asserted that the use of Pitocin to induce labor led to uterine hyperstimulation and associated fetal distress, to which the nurses at the hospital failed to properly respond. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant doctor and the defendant nurse-midwife were informed of these ominous signs regarding the fetal distress earlier in the day (approximately 5:20 p.m.), but elected to ignore them (the defendant nurse-midwife did not return to the hospital until after 10 p.m. and the defendant doctor never went back to the hospital). The defendants claimed that all of the care provided to the plaintiff mother was appropriate, and that the Pitocin did not cause uterine hyperstimulation. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff child’s condition was congenital in origin. Injuries: The plaintiffs claimed that Ryan Butterly was born with a brain injury, neuromotor deficits and Pituitary Stalk Interruption Syndrome. The plaintiff parents claimed that they suffered emotional distress. Settlement: After a mediation session with Kenneth Gack of JAMS, the plaintiffs settled their case for a total of $2.5 million. The plaintiffs’ counsel reported that the defendants successfully moved to continue the jury trial on the basis that they needed genetic testing. The testing indicated that the child did not have a genetic abnormality. The testing did not rule out other factors supporting a developmental or congenital origin for the child’s condition, according to defense counsel. Wanda Butterly, $250,000 settlement; Patrick Butterly, $250,000 settlement; Ryan Butterly, $2,000,000 settlement ($800,000 cash and a structure providing $5,500 per month compounding annually at 2 percent for life, guaranteed for 20 years). Demand: $1 million policy limits CCP 998 to defendants Michael Bleecker, M.D., and Bea Haber, CNM; $2.85 million to defendant hospital Offer: None before mediation TOXIC TORT Settlement: $69,010,000 Case: South Tahoe Public Utility District v. Atlantic Richfield Co., ARCO Chemical Co., Shell Oil Co., Texaco, Equilon, Chevron, USA Inc., Exxon Corp., Unocal, BP America Inc., TOSCO Corp., Ultramar Inc., Terrible Herbst Inc., and Thomas Erickson dba Tahoe Tom’s, 999128 Court: San Francisco Superior Court Judge: Carlos Bea Date: 8/05/2002 Attorneys for plaintiff: Duane Miller, Victor Sher, Tracey O’Reilly, A. Curtis Sawyer Jr. and Tamarin Austin of Miller, Sher & Sawyer in Sacramento Attorneys for defense: Lawrence Cox of Arnold & Porter in Los Angeles (Atlantic Richfield Co.) Laurence Janssen of Steptoe & Johnson in Los Angeles (ARCO) Alan Hoffman of Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley in Philadelphia (ARCO) Steve Jones of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold in San Francisco (Shell, Equilon, Texaco) Richard Coffin of Barg, Coffin, Lewis & Trapp in San Francisco (Chevron) Robert Goodman of San Francisco (Chevron) Colleen Doyle of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen in Los Angeles (Exxon) Ken Waggoner of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison in Los Angeles (BP, Unocal) John Lyons, Jon Anderson and Michele Johnson of Latham & Watkins in the Los Angeles area (TOSCO) Craig de Recat of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles (Ultramar) Craig Parton of Price, Postel & Parma in Santa Barbara (Terrible Herbst Inc.) Jeffory Scharff of Sacramento (Tahoe Tom’s, Thomas Erickson) Facts: In what is believed to be the first MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) case tried in the country and the first time a jury has determined that MTBE is a defective product, the South Tahoe Public Utility District entered into a post-Phase I settlement with refiners, an MTBE manufacturer, gasoline stations and distributors who sold gasoline containing MTBE, for more than $69 million. The South Tahoe Public Utility District relied exclusively on wells to provide water to 30,000 residents of South Lake Tahoe and Meyers. Out of the 16 gasoline stations in South Lake Tahoe, 14 had gasoline releases that created MTBE groundwater plumes. MTBE was originally added to gasoline to boost octane and was used more extensively after 1992 to meet federal oxygenate requirements for cleaner burning gasoline. (Once released into the environment, MTBE has a unique capacity to cause extensive groundwater contamination because it is highly soluble, mobile and persistent. Extremely low concentrations of MTBE (in one study less than 1 ppb) can cause a noticeable taste or odor that renders drinking water unfit for human consumption. Several states have banned or phased out MTBE.) The district contended that gasoline containing MTBE was a defective product and that the defendants were also liable under trespass and nuisance theories. The district argued that MTBE caused extensive contamination of public drinking water supplies, that approximately 6,700 MTBE plumes were located within one-half mile of California wells. (The defendants contended that the district could not make a claim for wells that were removed from service before the MTBE plume actually contaminated the well. Under the Aas case ( Aas v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 24 Cal.4th 627 (2000)), the court held that plaintiff could recover for wells which had any past detection of MTBE, or which would have been contaminated by now if the well had been pumped by the district without any interruption in service.) The district also argued that MTBE did not reduce air pollution as claimed by the manufacturers. It posited that oxygenates were only effective in reducing emissions in cars manufactured before the mid-80s, an insignificant portion of cars currently in use. The district also asserted that if MTBE was used in gasoline, the manufacturers and distributors of the product should have provided warnings to gasoline service station operators, remediation consultants and others so that any release could be promptly detected and remediated. Evidence was presented that no such warnings were given. The defendants contended that MTBE removed thousands of tons of pollution from California air every day, that MTBE had not had a major impact on California wells, that any future impact was likely to be reduced due to improvements in gasoline storage systems, and that if MTBE was removed from gasoline, the price of gasoline in California alone would increase by $1 billion per year or more. The refiners claimed that they warned their customers not to release gasoline into the environment and that if spills occurred, they should immediately be cleaned up. Injuries: The district alleged that it had expended approximately $9 million on remedial measures to address MTBE contamination prior to trial. Hydrogeologists retained by the district predicted that 13 wells would be contaminated with detectable concentrations of MTBE for decades, which could be effectively abated through the use of charcoal filters at a cost of approximately $33 million. The district’s total compensatory damage claim was $60 million or less. Settlement: After seven weeks of deliberation, the jury returned Phase I verdicts finding that, during certain limited periods of time, gasoline containing MTBE was a defective product and that defendant Shell Oil Co. “acted with malice in selling gasoline containing MTBE that was defective in design because of a failure to warn.” The jury made a similar finding with respect to ARCO Chemical Co., which manufactured MTBE, but not gasoline. Polls: 11-1 as to malice and liability, except 9-3 as to TOSCO liability. After 10 months of trial, the remaining defendants settled the case. Pretrial settlements exceeded $30 million and the settlements collectively totaled more than $69 million. Amount of settlement paid: Shell, Texaco and Equilon, $28,000,000 Exxon, $12,000,000 Chevron USA Inc., $10,000,000 TOSCO, $ 3,000,000 Unocal Corp., $ 1,600,000 Atlantic Richfield Co., $3,250,000 ARCO Chemical Co., $4,000,000 Distributors, $2,025,000 Local Gasoline Stations, $5,135,000 ($100,000 to $3.5 million per station) Demand: (per CCP [ SECTION SYMBOL]998) Shell, Texaco and Equilon, $18,000,000 Exxon, $18,000,000 Chevron USA Inc., $ 5,000,000 TOSCO, $15,000,000 Unocal Corp., $ 2,000,000 Atlantic Richfield Co., $ 7,500,000 ARCO Chemical Co. $ 5,000,000 Distributors, $4,700,000 Local Gasoline Stations, $ 5,000,000 ($100,000 to $3.5 million per station) Offer: various Trial Details: Trial length, 10 months. Deliberations, 7 weeks

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.