Posted by Courtroom View Network on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 @ 10:00 AM
In Dade County Courthouse’s first Engle progeny trial of the year, jurors heard opening statements in the Larkin v. RJ Reynolds trial in front of Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr. By the end of the first day, a theme developed in the courtroom around the nature of choices, made both by individuals who smoke cigarettes, and the companies that manufacture them.
Born in 1944, Carole Larkin was a daily smoker by the age of nineteen, smoking on average one pack per day for thirty five years until she quit in 1988. Prior to her quitting, she developed pre-cancerous cells on her tongue which later led to Dysplasia and ultimately to floor-of-mouth cancer. She died in 2000.
Plaintiffs contend that Larkin was a member of the Engle Class, that she was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine, and that the negligence of RJR was a legal cause of loss, injury, and damage. However, according to Larkin’s attorney, Phillip M. Gerson of Gerson & Schwartz, “we don’t say that the smoker has no responsibility. It’s not a hundred percent her fault. It’s a shared responsibility”.
At the close of his opening statement, Gerson asked jurors to consider “the choices that this ordinary housewife made over her lifetime compared to the choices that this large corporation that conspired with other companies to conceal the truth made just so they could make more money”.
“Any smoker can quit. Three thousand quit every day” claimed defense attorney Anthony Upshaw, of McDermott Will & Emery. In addition, Upshaw contends Larkin was not a member of the Engle class since she quit in 1988, prior to the class’s 1990 beginning and that she was not addicted to nicotine. In one of the more memorable lines regarding nicotine addiction, Upshaw declared “each time she decided to quit smoking she was successful”. Larkin stopped smoking once for a year, resumed, then ultimately quit for good in 1988.
Picking up on the theme of personal responsibility and choice introduced by plaintiff’s counsel, Upshaw asked jurors: “Mrs. Larkin accepts some responsibility for her smoking, but only some, right? Nobody but Carole Larkin could have made the choice, not ten percent, not twenty percent. A hundred percent, only she could have made that choice”.
Larkin v. RJ Reynolds, available live on Courtroom View Network, is set to run through the beginning of February.
Posted by David Siegel on Fri, Jan 27, 2012 @ 04:26 PM
SEBRING, FL - The first major tobacco lawsuit of 2012 ended yesterday with RJ Reynolds (NYSE: RAI) and Philip Morris (NYSE: PM) being ordered to pay a combined $2.5 million in damages to a deceased smoker's surviving husband.
Following nearly three-weeks of trial testimony a Highlands County jury found the two tobacco companies responsible for the smoking-related lung cancer of Theo Hallgren's late wife, Claire Hallgren.
After determining Claire Hallgren was 50% responsible for her addiction and awarding $2 million to Theo Hallgren in compensatory damages, the jury went on to order RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris to pay $750,000 each in punitive damages.
Hallgren's lawsuit was originally part of the 2006 "Engle" class-action case, which resulted in a historic $145 billion dollar verdict. The tobacco companies appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court later ruled each case must be tried individual. Hallgren's trial was the first of dozens scheduled across Florida state courts in 2012 with thousands of other cases still awaiting trial dates.
During closing arguments attorney T. Hardee Bass, of the firm Searcy Denny, told jurors in light of the tobacco company's current billion-dollar profits, they needed to send a strong message with a large verdict. "That's what this morning is about, punishment," said Bass. "Punishment for the harm they caused to Claire Hallgren."
Representing Philip Morris, attorney William Geraghty of Shook Hardy Bacon told the jury the company had made massive, systemic changes since the 1950's, when tobacco products were marketed more aggressively. FDA regulation and Philip Morris' own practices meant they had already taken enough corrective action. Dal Burton of Womble Carlyle, representing RJ Reynolds, said his client had also eliminated practices from the "1930's and 40's that are today an anathema."
Attorneys for Hallgren asked the jury for $19 million in damages, and the reduced verdict represents recent success tobacco company defendants have had in limiting punitive damages amounts after much larger verdicts in earlier Engle trials.
Engle trials are scheduled throughout 2012 across the state of Florida. Another is currently underway in Miami, with at least three more trials set to begin next month. Courtroom View Network covered the Hallgren trial gavel to gavel, as it has for nearly all Engle tobacco trials to date.
The case is Theo Hallgren, for the estate of Claire Hallgren v. Philip Morris USA, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, No. 10-761 in the 10th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.
Posted by Courtroom View Network on Mon, Jan 23, 2012 @ 02:45 PM
LAS VEGAS, NV - A civil trial has resumed after a nearly three-month break in a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (NASDAQ: TEVA) and their distributor Baxter International (NYSE: BAX) related to Hepatitis-C contamination at a Las Vegas endoscopy clinic.
The trial was halted last October by the Nevada Supreme Court, while they considered a motion from the defendants for a change of venue, which claimed pre-trial publicity from large verdicts in previous related cases would prevent the selection of an impartial jury in Clark County. The Supreme Court issued an opinion denying the motion last December, and trial proceedings resumed earlier this month. Read the the court's decision
here.
In the underlying case, plaintiff Stacy Hutchison alleges Teva and Baxter are responsible for her contracting Hepatitis-C, due to the companies' sale of the anesthetic Propofol in large containers, later used by Dr. Dipak Desai for multiple uses with contaminated needles at his endoscopy clinics. Dr. Desai, who has declared bankruptcy, is awaiting trial on criminal charges later this year. Defendants also include Sicor, Inc. and McKesson Medical-Surgical (NYSE: MCK).
Hutchison's case is one of many similar lawsuits filed against the pharmaceutical companies in Las Vegas. Jurors returned a $90 million verdict against Teva and Baxter in another trial a few weeks prior to the start of Hutchison's, and the first Propofol-related case to go to trial resulted in a verdict exceeding $500 million, the largest in the state's history.
The defendants, represented on appeal by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Texas-based McDonald Devin, in their initial brief to the court, claimed it would be "impossible" to select an unbiased jury due to the "vast number of Clark County residents who have a direct interest in this litigation and due to media coverage that has been overwhelmingly negative to towards the defendants." They requested the trial be transferred to Reno.
Hutchison's attorneys opposed the request, as did the trial court judge, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which wrote "…the record evidence demonstrated that, although this case and related cases received a fair amount of pretrial publicity…it was not of a kind or to the extent that it tainted the jury pool."
The trial is scheduled to continue through at least January 30, with another related endoscopy clinic trial set to begin next month. Despite the unusually lengthy recess, the jury remained under instructions from the court not to independently research or speak about the trial.
Courtroom View Network is providing a gavel-to-gavel video webcast of the Hutchison trial, as it has done for the three other endoscopy clinic trials to date. The case is Stacy Hutchison v. Teva and Baxter, Case Number 08A562216, Clark County Circuit Court, Nevada before Hon. Jerry Wiese.
Posted by David Siegel on Tue, Dec 20, 2011 @ 11:26 AM
Sarasota, Florida - A six-member jury found in favor of Sarasota's oldest law firm last week in a legal malpractice lawsuit with potentially millions of dollar stake.
The 86-year old law firm of Williams Parker Harrison Dietz & Getzen faced legal malpractice charges brought by Marc and Teresa Basnight, who claimed negligent legal advice led to the purchase of a commercial property that was later foreclosed on, and ultimately caused them roughly $3 million in damages.
The jury rejected the arguments of the Basnight's attorney, Andrew Seiden of Seiden, Alder & Matthewman P.A., after only 45-minutes of deliberations, according to the
Sarasota Herald Tribune.
Wiliams Parker attorneys John Moore and Terri Costa were represented by Phelps Dunbar partners Jessica Alley and Larry Ingram.
Courtroom View Network recorded the full two-week trial, gavel-to-gavel, which is available
here.
Posted by David Siegel on Mon, Dec 19, 2011 @ 09:51 AM
Portland, Oregon - An Oregon state court held yesterday that executives at the Golden Temple natural foods company unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Sikh religious community.
Judge Leslie Roberts of Multnomah County Circuit ruled Golden Temple CEO Kartar Sing Khalsa and other executives privately enriched themselves despite the company being held in trust for religious purposes. The plaintiffs, Sikh ministers, are now asking for $50 million in damages.
According to The Register-Guard's coverage of the case, plaintiff's attorney John McGrory of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP called Judge Robert's decision a "complete victory."
Briefs for monetary damages and other possible remedies are due to the court by Januray 1.
A lengthy trial took place this summer and a number of later motion hearings were covered by Courtroom View Network (CVN). Gavel-to-gavel video of the Golden Temple Proceedings are available at CVN.
The Sikh News Network, which reported on the trial via a CVN video feed, also provides in depth background on the case.
Posted by David Siegel on Thu, Dec 08, 2011 @ 07:30 AM
Sarasota, Florida - Partners from the prestigious law firm Williams Parker Harrison Dietz & Getzen are no strangers to Sarasota courtrooms, but in a legal malpractice trial that began this week they are not representing clients. They are the clients.
The firm, founded in 1925, is fighting a legal malpractice suit before Judge Charlie Roberts brought by Michael and Teresa Basnight, a local doctor and his wife alleging the 48-lawyer firm provided inadequate legal counsel leading to the purchase of an office building that was later foreclosed on. Michael Braga of the Sarasota Herald Tribune provides a great summary of yesterday's opening statements and more background on the complicated case.
Williams Parker obviously denies the charges, and it's always fascinating when prominent members of the legal community look to find representation themselves. In this case, the Sarasota firm looked to the Tampa office of Phelps Dunbar, which with a 23-person professional liability practice group and offices across the southeast, certainly qualifies as a "big gun." According to the Herald Tribune, Jessica Alley, a partner in the Tampa office, delivered opening statements.
The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Seiden of Seiden, Alder & Matthewman, P.A., a 7-person firm which, founded in 1998, is slightly younger than the 86-year old pillar of the Sarasota legal community they're taking on in Judge Robert's courtroom.
CVN is webcasting the full two-week trial of Tibar v. Williams, gavel-to-gavel. With this many top-shelf lawyers squaring off in the courtroom, along with the financial stakes and seeing Sarasota’s oldest law firm on the stand, this should be anything but your average legal malpractice trial.
The case is Tibar LLC v. Williams Parker, Case No. 2008 CA 018070 NC in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.
Posted by Courtroom View Network on Mon, Nov 28, 2011 @ 01:03 PM
Sury v. R.J. Reynolds (Jacksonville, Florida)
A jury reached a $1 million verdict Monday morning in the Sury v. RJ Reynolds Engle Tobacco trial. Specifically they found the plaintiff, William Sury, 60% at fault with the remaining fault split between RJ Reynolds and Lorillard evenly, each with 20%. There were no punitive damages awarded.
William Sury started smoking by the age of 21 in 1941. In the early 1990s he tried several times to quit by using nicotine patches. He successfully quit in 1995, months before he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Over the next two years he underwent chemotherapy and radiation. William died in May of 1997.
Echoing the arguments of the other Engle tobacco trials, Shamp focused in on the addictive nature of cigarettes. She elaborated during her opening statement, “Their product was addiction and what they wanted to do was to continue to addict generations of Americans to their product. They weren’t out to sell one carton. They were out to sell carton, after carton, after carton.”
The two defense attorneys took different strategies. John Williams of Jones Day represented RJ Reynolds. Williams asserted throughout the trial that the medical causation of Sury’s death was unknown due to missing paperwork. David Woods, of Shook Hardy & Bacon represented Lorillard. Woods argued that Sury was an informed, adult smoker who was in control of his smoking decisions.
“[We are] not disputing that smoking can cause lung cancer or that smoking can be addictive. At the end of the day, ask yourself who was in control of Mr. Sury’s smoking decisions. Was it Lorillard or Mr. Sury?”
This trial was another, in a long list of lawsuits that have sprung up since the 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision that decertified the tobacco class action initially filed by Howard Engle. That decision allows class members to individually sue for damages related to their various health issues.
Read our coverage of the other Engle trials or watch Sury v. RJ Reynolds streaming online at CVN.
Posted by Courtroom View Network on Tue, Nov 15, 2011 @ 01:21 PM
New Jersey is home to another Accutane toxic tort trial, as plaintiff Priya Tanna sues Roche to recover for her permanent injuries. Tanna started using the prescription Accutane as a 15 year old and has since developed Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD).
During his opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel Paul Smith asserted that Accutane’s brochure was misleading because it never mentioned IBD, latency or the permanency of resulting conditions. Further, he shared images of Roche’s internal documents that show Accutane knew about such toxicity effects like IBD.
Defense counsel, Marie Woodbury of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP stated that this trial is actually about Tanna’s medical history and the conversations she had with her two dermatologist, Doctors Vierra and Barber.
“The warning information that was communicated to Priya Tanna’s doctors was adequate, appropriate, accurate and acknowledged by these doctors,” Woodbury said. “Roche has a 7-step warning system to make sure that doctors understand the importance of communicating risks to patients.”
Woodbury asserts that Roche followed the 7-step process and it was the shortfall of Tanna’s doctors that led to her lack of information or misinformation. Woodbury stated that the aim of the 7 step warning process is to make sure “that no one makes a casual decision to prescribe Accutane.”
Watch this Priya Tanna Accutane Trial live on CVN.
Paul Smith breaks his case down into three parts.
Marie Woodbury shows the jury the blister pack for Accutane as the last step in the 7-step process.
Posted by Courtroom View Network on Mon, Nov 14, 2011 @ 08:30 AM
A Florida jury awarded plaintiff, David Milian just over $1 million Thursday afternoon in his suit against Miami nightspot Nikki Beach Club. Specifically, the jury awarded $150,000 for loss of earnings, $100,000 for hospital and medical bills from the past and into the future, and $800,000 for pain suffering and mental anguish.
On August 3, 2008 Milian visited Nikki Beach Club with his girlfriend. Near the club’s bathrooms Milian exchanged words with Guido Trinidad and their interactions escalated into a physical altercation. Trinidad hit Milian in the face with a bar glass, creating serious injury and severing the nerves on the right side of his face. Milian brought suit against Nikki Beach Club for pain, suffering, his resulting disability and medical bills of approximately $50,000.
Plaintiff’s attorney, Philip Gerson, stated that a nightclub is required to keep its property reasonably safe by providing adequate security. In his opening statement he alleged that the fight was “both foreseeable and preventable by the nightclub. There was a needless danger. They knew fights, including attacks with glasses, had happened before. They could have prevented the crime but didn’t.”
Mitchel Chusid, of Ritter, Chusid, Bizona & Cohen, represented the defendant night club. Chusid asserted that while the plaintiff did receive injuries on defendant’s property, Nikki Beach Club took the proper precautions to make the nightspot safe. He further stated that the incident happened very quickly while Trinidad was enraged and that club security responded quickly.
Today, while asking for damages between 1 and 2 million dollars, Gerson told the jury, “You are like cashiers at a supermarket. You just add up the items. The amount can be large or the amount can be small. It is whatever comes to you, and you should not be embarrassed if the amount that comes to you in total in this case is large.”
CVN webcast the Milian v. Nikki Beach Club trial live, gavel-to-gavel.
Subscribe to CVN and watch real live trial video for low monthly prices.
Posted by Gianna Albaum on Mon, Nov 14, 2011 @ 08:00 AM
Robin Listman lost her leg in 2001 when she jumped out of an Outboard Marine Corporation ‘Four Winds’ sport boat and struck her leg against the unguarded propeller of the boat. The plaintiff claims that the manufacturer’s failure to include a propeller guard constituted a failure in the design, that is, constituted a defective product.William Jeanney, the plaintiff’s attorney, noted that approximately 45 people per year were dying from being struck by a boat propellers in 1978. He added that not only was Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) aware of the propeller-related injury statistics, propeller guards were available and on the market for just this purpose.Defense attorney 
responded that the propeller had functioned appropriately under the circumstances and that the danger could not be considered ‘unreasonable.’ “This is not a case where the propeller snapped off flew through the air and bopped somebody in the head or the propeller blew up and caught fire,” McNally said. “This is a propeller that is designed to push a speed boat through the water smoothly and efficiently.”McNally added that “prop[eller] guards don’t work,” asking a rhetorical question to illustrate his point. “Why don’t any of the boats have prop guards on them now? Is it because all boats defective and dangerous?” he asked. “Of course not. Boats don’t have prop guards on them because they don’t work, they’re dangerous, they’re not required … and in fact independent researchers have recommended that prop guards not be used.”Both attorneys cited previous OMC development of potential propeller guard prototypes, all of which were terminated for various reasons, to support their arguments. McNally argued the termination of the projects indicated propeller guards do not function well while Jeanney argued that their existence belied the defense’s claim that such guards are unnecessary or ‘dangerous.’Jeanney asked an engineer to develop a propeller guard that would have prevented Listman’s injury without hindering performance, which they claimed to have done in under 40 hours. “They had the knowledge, the resources, the ability, and the budget to do this,” Jeanney concluded. “It could have been done and it should have been done.”McNally claimed that Kevin Listman’s use of a different OMC boat “50 times a year” shows that the boat in question — the boat that maimed Robin Listman — is not defective or dangerous.“He still uses the boat, he uses it with the Listman children,” McNally said. “Mr. Listman does not think that his boat, another OMC boat, is dangerous or defective.”Jeanney concluded by describing the consequences Listman suffers as a result of the loss of her limb, including issues with the prosthetic limb and medical bills totaling over $200,000. McNally said in response that the plaintiff lawyers “want millions of dollars,” but that evidence would prove that the boat was not in fact dangerous or defective.“She will go home with no money,” he added. “It seems a little bit harsh but if that’s what the law requires and what the evidence shows, that’s what you need to do.”