Lynn Johnson and Tom Hayes won the largest products liability verdict in a Kansas state court. After an 8-week trial a Miami County, Kansas, jury returned an unanimous verdict in three related cases totaling $17.6 million against Conoco, Inc.
Our firm represented David Hurlbut, who was severely burned in the asphalt dip vat explosion that occurred in Paola, Kansas in January 1988, as well as the heirs of John Windisch and Charles Hoffman who died as a result of the explosion.
The jury found that the plaintiffs' injuries and deaths were caused when Conoco Heat Transfer Oil within the heat transfer chamber of the vat auto-ignited resulting in an enormous explosion. Lynn and Tom presented over 60 witnesses and 400 exhibits involving the recommendation of purchase, use and ultimate fatal explosion of Conoco Heat Transfer Oil. The jury deliberated for almost three days and unanimously found Conoco liable for breach of express and implied warranty, strict liability pursuant to 402A and 402B, as well as negligence.
This trial was a large undertaking, but thanks to the use of a number of litigation tools the trial team was able to overcome the difficulties that are associated with such a case. One of the tools was a mock trial conducted by Advocacy Research Associates. Trial presentations were made on behalf of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, the group of jurors was broken down into four juries and the deliberations were videotaped for review. Analysis of the jury deliberations helped us pinpoint key issues that otherwise might have been overlooked. The value of the mock trial as a litigation tool contributed directly to the arguments that led to the verdict.
Perhaps the most challenging issue of the case was how to explain the design, operation and maintenance of the asphalt dip vat and its heat transfer system. To address this problem, we hired a student engineer to build a scale model of the 30-foot vat in cooperation with the engineers whom we had retained to testify as expert witnesses. Unfortunately, the vat building was destroyed and the vat itself was substantially deformed by the explosion. We spent a significant amount of time and energy establishing the exact measurements of the vat and its operating characteristics. Because of these efforts, the scale model of the vat and building were received into evidence without objection. After the verdict was returned, several jurors told Lynn and Tom that the scale model was the most effective exhibit in the trial.
Another valuable litigation tool was computer-generated drawings of the asphalt dip vat that were produced by our firm. Through the use of our Macintosh computer system and the expertise of Mark Johnson, numerous technical drawings were generated before and during the trial as new issues arose. Over thirty computer drawings were developed by our firm and all were either used as demonstrative aids or entered into evidence by the Court.
The turnaround time on the exhibits was extremely important. During the trial, defendants' experts produced new calculations and opinions that required the production of additional computer drawings in order to cross-examine and impeach their testimony. Without these drawings it would have been extremely difficult to explain many of the complicated, technical issues.
Another very important litigation tool used during the trial was a daily trial transcript. Although the cost of the trial transcript was $8.00 a page, we believe the length and complexity of the trial warranted the expense. Consequently, it was possible to have the trial testimony printed as transparencies for use in impeaching witnesses and for display during closing argument. The daily transcript not only allowed the trial team to refer to testimony during trial, but also should significantly expedite the appeal process. Because the 8-week trial transcript is already complete, we estimate that six months to one year has been saved on appeal.
The use of all of these litigation tools provided the trial team with many advantages during the development and presentation of the facts to the jury. We invite anyone interested in the litigation techniques used in Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc. to call us or come by to discuss the role they played in obtaining the largest products liability verdict in Kansas state court history.
