Gaddy v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-12926 |
| Citation | 446 F.Supp.3d 140 |
| Parties | James Leoma GADDY et al. v. TAYLOR SEIDENBACH, INC. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, Matthew C. Clark, Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for James Leoma Gaddy et al.
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, Metairie, LA, Walter G. Watkins, III, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Jackson, MS, Mary Reeves Arthur, Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. et al.
Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for New Trial and/or Remittitur and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, R. Doc. 58-1. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. R. Doc. 84. Oral argument was heard on February 19, 2020. Having considered the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
Decedent, James Leoma Gaddy, filed a Petition for Damages against various defendants on September 21, 2018 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 3. The petition generally alleges that Gaddy was exposed to asbestos while working at International Paper from 1948–1950 and in 1952, and while working as a chemical engineer at Ethyl Corporation's facility from 1955–1960. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 4. Gaddy filed suit against a number of defendants, including Taylor-Seidenbach, which is domiciled in Louisiana. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 5. Gaddy is an Arkansas resident. After Gaddy passed away in January 2018, his children were substituted as Plaintiffs. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 6.
On September 25, 2019, Plaintiffs informed Ethyl that they had reached a settlement agreement with Taylor-Seidenbach, the only remaining Louisiana defendant in the matter. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 12. Accordingly, Ethyl Corporation, the only remaining defendant, filed a notice of removal on diversity jurisdiction grounds, as Plaintiffs are citizens of Arkansas and Ethyl Corporation is a citizen of Virginia. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 14–15. Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to remand on October 3, 2019, which the Court denied on October 4, 2019. R. Doc. 7.
A jury trial began on November 4, 2019. Plaintiffs' case-in-chief involved the testimony of the decedent, James Leoma Gaddy; Eugene Ponti, the corporate representative of Ethyl Corporation; Susan Raterman, an expert in the field of industrial hygiene, Dr. Richard Kradin, an expert in the field of internal medicine, pulmonology, pathology, and asbestos diseases; Dr. Ted Fish, Dr. Gaddy's treating cardiologist; and James Courtney Gaddy, Dr. Gaddy's son.
After Plaintiffs rested, Ethyl Corporation presented its case, calling Nemore Rayne, a former Ethyl employee; Wallace Armstrong, a former Ethyl employee; James Hamilton, a former Ethyl employee; Dr. James Rock, an expert in the field of industrial hygiene; and Dr. William Breall, an expert in the field of cardiology.
At the close of evidence, both parties made Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law regarding certain aspects of the case. Both motions were denied. Both sides gave closing arguments on the morning of November 8, 2020, and the jury began deliberating. Later that day, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, finding Ethyl Corporation both negligent and strictly liable, and awarding Plaintiffs $7,500,000.00 in general damages.1 The jury also awarded $250,661.45 in medical expenses. R. Doc. 50. The jury also found International Paper negligent and strictly liable, and Owens-Illinois liable as a manufacturer of an unreasonably dangerous product. Final judgment was entered on November 20, 2020 in favor of Plaintiffs against Ethyl Corporation for $2,583,553.82, plus legal interest, which represented Ethyl's share of liability after accounting for the virile shares of International Paper and Owens-Illinois. R. Doc. 53.
Defendant Ethyl timely filed a motion for a new trial or, alternatively, for remittitur. R. Doc. 58. Defendant argues it is entitled to a new trial for the following four reasons: (1) the jury verdict is against the great weight of the evidence; (2) the court committed legal error in permitting inadmissible expert testimony; (3) the jury verdict followed improper conduct by the jury; and (4) the amount of the verdict is so excessive as to shock the conscience.
Defendant also renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law made at trial, arguing Ethyl cannot be held strictly liable for Dr. Gaddy's mesothelioma because any asbestos exposure he experienced at Ethyl was the result of temporary maintenance activities that do not rise to the level of a "defect," as a matter of law, under article 2317.
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the trial was fair, the evidence was reliable, and the witnesses were trustworthy and convincing. R. Doc. 80-2 at 9.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides that "[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—as follows: after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A).
Under Rule 59, a new trial may be granted if "the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course." Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co. , 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); see also McFadden v. Wal–Mart Stores , No. 04-2547, 2006 WL 3087164, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2006). "A district court, however, should attempt to avoid substituting its judgment for the jury's considered verdict, so as to not violate the parties' Seventh Amendment rights." Sorina v. Avis Rent–A–Car Sys., Inc. , 1992 WL 40840, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 1992) ; see also Wright v. Nat'l Interstate Ins. Co. , No. CV 16-16214, 2018 WL 2017567, at *3 (E.D. La. May 1, 2018), aff'd , 762 F. App'x 201 (5th Cir. 2019). If the jury's verdict is "clearly within the universe of possible awards which are supported by the evidence," the district court should not grant a new trial. Narcisse v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. , 620 F.2d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting Bonura v. Sea Land Service, Inc. , 505 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir. 1974) ). A district court should not interfere with the factfinder's award of damages unless it is in an amount that "shock[s] the judicial conscience and ... raise[s] an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption or other improper cause invaded the trial." Munn v. Algee , 924 F.2d 568, 578 (5th Cir. 1991).
Because the matter is before the Court on diversity jurisdiction, the new trial and remittitur standards of Louisiana law are applicable. See Fair v. Allen , 669 F.3d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 2012) ; Foradori v. Harris , 523 F.3d 477, 498 (5th Cir. 2008) ().
Under Louisiana law, "[a] new trial shall be granted ... [w]hen the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and evidence." La. Code Civ. P. 1972(1). "The trial court's discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial is great, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion." Davis v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. , 774 So. 2d 84, 93 (La. 2000). "Whether to grant a new trial requires a discretionary balancing of many factors." Id. (citing Gibson v. Bossier City Gen. Hosp. , 594 So. 2d 1332 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991) ). The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained the trial court's discretion as follows:
The fact that a determination on a motion for new trial involves judicial discretion, however, does not imply that the trial court can freely interfere with any verdict with which it disagrees. The discretionary power to grant a new trial must be exercised with considerable caution.... Fact finding is the province of the jury, and the trial court must not overstep its duty in overseeing the administration of justice and unnecessarily usurp the jury's responsibility. A motion for new trial solely on the basis of being contrary to the evidence is directed squarely at the accuracy of the jury's factual determinations and must be viewed in that light. Thus, the jury's verdict should not be set aside if it is supportable by any fair interpretation of the evidence.
Id. (citing Gibson , 594 So. 2d 1332 ).
In making this determination, the trial court must balance the great deference given to the jury as the factfinder and the discretion bestowed upon the court in reviewing the motion, but the scales are "clearly tilted in favor of the survival of the jury's verdict." Id. at 93–94. The trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is to be made on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 94.
Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that "the decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial generally is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of that discretion or a misapprehension of the law." Dixon v. International Harvester Co. , 754 F.2d 573, 586 (5th Cir. 1985) ; see also Prytania Park Hotel, Ltd. v. General Star Indemnity Co. , 179 F.3d 169, 175 (5th Cir. 1999) ; Mitchell v. Lone Star Ammunition, Inc. , 913 F.2d 242, 252 (5th Cir. 1990) ; Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc. , 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1982) ; Evers v. Equifax, Inc. , 650 F.2d 793, 796 (5th Cir. 1981). Moreover, modifying or setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial