On July 31, 1993 the Kansas Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion affirming David Hurlbut's judgment against Conoco, Inc. Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc., et al., No. 68379, slip op. at 39 (Kan. July 30, 1993). Following an eight week trial in March and April of 1992, a Miami County jury found Conoco liable for breach of express warranty, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation of material facts and unanimously awarded David Hurlbut $14,613,553.00 and apportioned fault 85% against Conoco and 15% against David Hurlbut's employer, J & J Metal Products Co. (See SJBM Newsletter, July, 1992, for an article on the trial.) Judgment was entered against Conoco and in favor of David Hurlbut in the amount of $12,421,520.00. Conoco appealed, claiming that the trial court (1) erred in failing to grant its motions for summary judgment, directed verdict, and judgment notwithstanding a verdict; and (2) deprived it of its right to a fair trial.
The opinion is quite instructive on the subject evidentiary issues and the exercise of discretion by the trial court. The trial judge was faced with a number of difficult evidentiary issues involving expert calculations and opinions, newly discovered documents, and demonstrative evidence. In each instance, the trial court gave the parties an opportunity to present their arguments on the record, and for each ruling provided a detailed explanation of its reasoning. As the Supreme Court noted, judicial discretion implies the liberty to act as a judge should act, applying the rules and the analogies of the law to the facts and situations that occur prior to and during the trial. An open and frank discussion of the issues by the parties followed by a thoughtful and well explained decision will almost never result in a finding of abuse of discretion upon appellate review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's admission of a newly discovered critical document (a brochure describing the asphalt dip vat involved in the explosion). Based upon the trial judge's finding that the probative value of the brochure to ascertain the truth substantially outweighed any risk that admission of the brochure would unfairly or harmfully prejudice Conoco. The Supreme Court observed that, "[t]he major purpose of the introduction of evidence at trial is to arrive at the truth." Id. at 39. This basic and elementary proposition should guide all parties and the trial court in every trial.
A document, testimony, or any other type of evidence that speaks the truth concerning a relevant issue should be admitted. Such evidence may be rejected only because (1) it is unreliable; (2) it is not relevant; or (3) it contravenes some legal policy more important than the determination of truth. Id at 39.
Conoco did not appeal the Supreme Court's decision and the entire judgment plus interest has been satisfied.
