Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., WD
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 765 S.W.2d 42 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | Betty L. ELAM, Clarence Elam and Linda Lou Sanders, Ethel M. Berry, Carl C. * and Jacqueline Berry, Virgil and Dorothy Bradley, Edward and Malva Gehlken, Dainie and Mary Lucetta Landon,* Gwendolyn and John C. Lawrence, Glen A. and Bernice Miller, Charlotte A. and John Phillips, Daniel Charles and Joyce Pryor and Amber Cross, Arnold L., Joy R., Joyce and Tammy Sommers, James R., Kay D., William Lance, Lisa and Lyle Turley, Genevieve and Ralph H. Withers, Respondents-Appellants, v. ALCOLAC, INC., Appellant-Respondent.38105. |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1988 |
Page 42
Berry, Carl C. * and Jacqueline Berry, Virgil
and Dorothy Bradley, Edward and Malva Gehlken, Dainie and
Mary Lucetta Landon,*
Gwendolyn and John C. Lawrence, Glen A. and Bernice Miller,
Charlotte A. and John Phillips, Daniel Charles and Joyce
Pryor and Amber Cross, Arnold L., Joy R., Joyce and Tammy
Sommers, James R., Kay D., William Lance, Lisa and Lyle
Turley, Genevieve and Ralph H. Withers, Respondents-Appellants,
v.
ALCOLAC, INC., Appellant-Respondent.
No. WD 38105.
Western District.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court
Denied Dec. 27, 1988.
Application to Transfer Denied March 14, 1989.
Page 47
Lantz Welch and Timothy L. Brake, Lantz Welch, P.C., Charles Fairchild and J.R. Hobbs, Linde Thomson Fairchild Langworthy, Kohn, Kansas City, for appellant-respondent.
Alvin D. Shapiro and Martha A. Fagg, Kansas City, Patrick A. Woodley, Warsaw, H. Gregory Skidmore, Cumberland, Md., for respondents-appellants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE
I. The Litigation History ............................................... 49
II. The Alcolac Plant:
A. Its Design and Operation ........................................ 50
B. Startup of Operations--1978 ..................................... 52
C. Plant Operations After WAPORA ................................... 59
D. 1. Opinion for the Plaintiffs The Alcolac Operation:
Opinions of the Experts .................................. 68
2. Opinion for Alcolac ........................................ 70
III. The Chemicals ........................................................ 72
IV. Residents in the Environs of Alcolac
A. The Plaintiffs"Witnesses ........................................ 78
B. The Non"Litigant Witnesses
1. For the Plaintiffs ......................................... 79
2. For the Defendant .......................................... 80
V. The Medical and Scientific Evidence .................................. 81
A. The Family Practitioner"Dr. Donald J. Allcorn ................... 81
B. The Immunologists ............................................... 82
VI. A. The Medical Experts and Biological Causation For the
Plaintiffs .................................................... 89
B. The Medical Experts and Biological Causation For the
Defendants ................................................... 164
VII. Submissions, Verdicts, Judgments .................................... 171
PART TWO
The Alcolac Appeal on the Negligence Causes of Action ..................... 172
I. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdicts ............................... 173
A.
1. The Issue of Causation in Fact"The Principles ............. 173
2. The Issue of Causation in Fact"The Argument ............... 175
3. The Issue of Causation in Fact"The Biological Causation
Subelement .............................................. 185
4. Disposition of the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding
the Verdicts ............................................ 188
B. Motion for New Trial
1. Expert Opinion Evidence ................................... 189
2. Diagnosis and Methodology ................................. 190
3. Competency of Medical Opinion on "Nonmedical" Causation ... 194
4. Undue Limitation of Cross"Examination ..................... 197
5. Instruction No. 9 ......................................... 203
6. Increased Risk of Cancer .................................. 206
7. Miscellaneous Errors ...................................... 211
a. Conduct of the Trial ................................... 211
b. Improper Closing Argument .............................. 212
c. Evidentiary Errors ..................................... 214
8. Disposition of the Motion for New Trial ................... 216
PART THREE
Appeal of the Plaintiffs .................................................. 219
I. Identical Verdicts as Ground for New Trial
A. Actual Damages ................................................. 220
B. Punitive Damages ............................................... 220
C. Submissibility of Punitive Damages ............................. 225
PART FOUR
Appellate Judgment ........................................................ 229
APPENDICES
A--Aerial view of Alcolac plant
B--Aerial view of the locations of residences of plaintiff and non-plaintiff
witnesses
C--Foam storm on nearby property
D--Foam carried on Little Shaver creek
E--Resume of testimony given by each plaintiff related to environmental
medical diagnosis
F--Official Alcolac memorandum concerning the failure of the liquid
incinerator to function
G & H--Official Alcolac memorandum concerning excessive odor emissions
I & J--Material Safety Data Sheets concerning risk of exposure to
epichlorohydrin
K--Resumes of evaluations of the immunological systems of each plaintiff by
Dr. Stechschulte, an examiner for Alcolac
L"1, L"2, L"3--Typical SYMPTOMS CHART as completed and validated by expert
Dr. Carnow as to each plaintiff
M"1, M"2, M"3--Typical PHYSICAL FINDINGS CHART as completed and validated by
expert Dr. Carnow as to each plaintiff
N"1, N"2, N"3--Typical LABORATORY TEST CHART as to each plaintiff
O"1, O"2, O"3--Typical DIAGNOSIS CHART as validated for each plaintiff by
expert Dr. Carnow
P"1--SUMMARY OF SYMPTOMS by organ systems exhibited in common by the
plaintiffs as disclosed by history to Dr. Carnow
P"2--SUMMARY OF ABNORMAL PHYSICAL FINDINGS exhibited in common by plaintiffs
as disclosed upon physical examination by Dr. Carnow
P"3--SUMMARY OF ABNORMAL LAB TEST VALUES by organ system found in common for
plaintiffs
Q"1, Q"2, Q"3--Typical Alcolac diagnosis charts as validated by Dr. Emmett
and Dr. Kirby, examiners for Alcolac
Page 49
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and MANFORD and NUGENT, JJ.
SHANGLER, Presiding Judge.
This suit involves thirteen actions brought by thirty-two plaintiffs against Alcolac, Inc. and plant manager Fischer for injury to their persons and property from toxic spills and emissions from a chemical facility in Sedalia, Missouri. The actions, consolidated by order of the trial court, were in four counts and each sought recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. Only two counts were submitted to the jury: One, for the diminished market value of the residences, sounded in nuisance. The other, for injury to the persons, sounded in negligence. The jury, after a trial of more than four months, returned verdicts against Alcolac and awarded to each plaintiff on the claims for personal injury, $200,000 as compensatory damages and $1,387,096.70 as punitive damages. The award for property damage varied as to each claim. Alcolac thereafter moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. The trial court denied judgment n.o.v., but granted a new trial as to damages only as to each of the thirty-one 1 personal injury verdicts.
The several plaintiffs appeal the order to set aside the awards for personal injury damages on the negligence count and the grant of a new trial on those issues. Alcolac appeals the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on both negligence and nuisance counts, the entry of judgment for property damage on the nuisance count, and the entry of judgment of liability on the negligence count.
Alcolac commenced its Sedalia operations in May of 1978. In July of 1979 five of the thirteen plaintiff families filed suit in Pettis County with complaints of injury from the Alcolac operations. The five suits were voluntarily dismissed in February of 1981. In December of 1981 the suits were refiled in Jackson County, other suits were commenced, and eventually all were consolidated for trial. Alcolac made answer to the petitions. Alcolac also pleaded a multiple counterclaim. Count I was for Abuse of Process: that the plaintiffs and others in concert maliciously schemed to harass and force Alcolac to cease operations at the Pettis County plant, and to that end commenced an unfounded suit against Alcolac in Pettis County, took no initiative to advance the litigation and later dismissed the suit, but resumed the litigation in Jackson County--not for the redress or remedy of any civil wrong, but for ulterior purposes. Count II was for Civil Conspiracy: that the acts alleged against the plaintiffs in Count I constituted a civil conspiracy. Count III was in Prima Facie Tort: that the acts of the plaintiffs were intentionally done with the purpose to injure Alcolac, and without justification. The counterclaim sought recovery for compensatory and punitive damages as to each cause of action. Alcolac attempted proof of the cause of action
Page 50
through the cross-examination of the several plaintiffs, but without avail. At the conclusion of all the evidence Alcolac dismissed the counterclaim against all the plaintiffs with prejudice. Accordingly, the appeal and cross-appeal are from a final judgment and engage our jurisdiction to review.What remained was a massive litigation of thirty-one separate causes to action, joined for adjudication through the amenity of consolidation, but tried, submitted and determined by the jury as separate suits. It was a litigation which engaged the jury from August 12, 1985 to December 23, 1985 [four and one-half months] presented one hundred and sixty-five witnesses as well as hundreds of exhibits, and is recorded in ten thousand pages of transcript. The counter-appeals contest not only the validity of the submissions and the verdicts as returned, but also the judgment of the court which validates the proof of the causes of action but nullifies the money amounts returned by each verdict for personal injury and punitive damages. Our review entails the determination of the submissions, the validity of the verdicts, and the propriety of the judgments entered by the court--among the other claims of error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metro-North Commuter R.R. v. Buckley, 96320
...is a matter discrete from the question whether he has stated a claim for relief. 2. The state court cases include: Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 42, 208-209 (Mo.App.1988); Askey v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 102 A.D.2d 130, 477 N.Y.S.2d 242, 246-247 (App.Div.1984). The Federal District ......
-
A.O.A. v. Rennert, Case No. 4:11 CV 44 CDP
...area to guard against the careless release of toxic pollutants and other residues of their production process. Elam v. Alcolac, Inc. , 765 S.W.2d 42, 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). New York law is essentially the same: "Negligence is the absence of care, according to the circumstances." Palsgraf ......
-
James v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., A-2475-94T2
...(3) harm normally resulting from genetic or biochemical disruption rather than trauma or acute toxic response. See Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.Ct.App.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 817, 110 S.Ct. 69, 107 L.Ed.2d 36 (1989). Application of the "frequency, regularity and proximity"......
-
Badillo v. American Brands, Inc., 34300.
...Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28 (Ct.App.1987); Ayers v. Township of Jackson, 106 N.J. 557, 525 A.2d 287 (1987); see also Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.Ct.App.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 817, 110 S.Ct. 69, 107 L.Ed.2d 36 (1989) 2. See, e.g., Carey v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp., 999 F.Supp. 1......
-
Maps, charts, graphs and diagrams
...by themselves. Kilmer v. Browning , 806 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. 1991); Zagaroli v. Pollock , 379 S.E.2d 653 (N.C. 1989); Elam v. Alcolac, Inc ., 765 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. 1988). 23 Clark v. Cantrell, 504 S.E.2d 605 (S.C. 1998). See, supra, Chapter 11. Cawthorne v. Fogleman , 107 So.3d 906 (La.App., 2013). ......
-
Table of Cases
...S.Ct. 2077 (1991), § 10:140 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 556 (Tex. 1995), § 11:300 Elam v. Alcolac, Inc. , 765 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988), § 8:650.1 Elcock v. KMart Corp. , 233 F.3d 734 (3d Cir. 2000), § 3:462.2 Eliasen v. Hamilton, 111 F.R.D. 396 (N.D.Ill.......
-
Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Financial Records From DME
...testimony as to the amount of annual income derived from employment as an expert witness.” Id. at 65. See also Elam v. Alcolac, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. Ct. App. In a decision rendered April 22, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, addressed Allstate’s objections......