Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Gaines
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01866-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01866-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 04-19-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-08-2011 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Admission of expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Gatekeeping duty - Scientific authority - Proof of causation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Kitchens, J., Concurs in Result Only With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Chandler and King, JJ.; Randolph, J., Joins In Part. Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, J., Concurs in Part and in Result Without Separate Written Opinion Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-09-2009 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Jury found for the plaintiffs. Case Number: 2000-0604 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Sherwin-Williams Company |
MARGARET OERTLING CUPPLES
W. WAYNE DRINKWATER, JR.
LUTHER T. MUNFORD
FRED L. BANKS, JR.
JOHN G. CORLEW
KATHY A. SMITH
RICHARD H. DEANE, JR.
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF
ERIC G. LASKER |
||
| Appellee: | Trellvion Gaines, a Minor By and Through His Natural Mother, Legal Guardian and Next Friend, Sherneker Pollard | JOHN TIMOTHY GIVENS TIMOTHY W. PORTER PATRICK C. MALOUF MICHAEL J. CASANO DENNIS C. SWEET |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Admission of expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Gatekeeping duty - Scientific authority - Proof of causation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Trellvion Gaines filed suit against the Sherwin-Williams Company, claiming that his significant cognitive deficiencies are a result of lead poisoning from the paint used on the house in which he lived. The lawsuit was filed in 2000. Summary judgment was granted for Sherwin-Williams by the circuit court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and then reversed by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari in 2007. After another trial, a unanimous jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $7 million in compensatory damages. Sherwin-Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The plaintiff concedes that no scientific study has causally connected permanent brain damage to a single, asymptomatic elevation of blood lead to 30 ?g/dL, followed by a rapid decline to baseline. However, he argues that this was not a single exposure and that he was exposed to toxic Sherwin-Williams’ lead paint dust for four years. The plaintiff’s experts seemingly contradict each other and themselves. The plaintiff characterizes his expert witnesses as “some of the world’s leading experts in their respective fields[.]” However, Sherwin-Williams argues that the trial court failed to exercise its “gatekeeping duty” because it allegedly did not “undertake any meaningful evaluation [of the reliability of the opinions] beyond expert credentials.” M.R.E. 702 requires trial courts to act as “gatekeepers” with regard to expert opinion testimony, because juries tend to place great weight on the testimony of experts and can be misled by unreliable opinions. The opinions expressed by the plaintiffs’ expert were not reliable. A dose-response ratio is critical to determining the causal connection between a poison and an injury. In this case, the only known dose – or ingestion of lead – is represented by Trellvion’s elevated blood lead levels from September 1993. The experts extrapolated both dose and duration with only circumstantial supporting evidence. The basis for the experts’ causation testimony – that Trellvion was ingesting and being poisoned by lead the entire time he lived in the house – was mere speculation and inadmissible. The gatekeeping duty of trial judges includes making sure that the opinions themselves are based on sufficient facts or data and are the product of reliable principles and methods. Because the experts’ speculation that Trellvion had been ingesting lead throughout his entire residence at the home was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible, and because the plaintiff’s experts did not present any scientific authority that an acute, asymptomatic ingestion of lead could lead to the alleged injuries, the plaintiff did not offer sufficient proof of causation. Thus, the court should have granted Sherwin-Williams’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
