Defense attorney in whisnant trial disputes plaintiff claims

Jefferson County, Texas â€" Last week, the plaintiff’s attorney in the Whisnant Versus DuPont trial claimed that the jury had been unduly influenced and had wrongly delivered a verdict in favor of the defendant as a result. The defense attorney has since responded to the claims, saying that “The plaintiff is just arbitrarily asking the court to set aside [the verdict] because it didn’t go their way.” The Whisnant Versus DuPont trial played out over six weeks in February and March of 2008. During the trial, the jury heard plaintiff claims that Willis Whisnant had developed mesothelioma as a result of negligence on the part of contractual employer DuPont. The case was filed by the estate of Willis Whisnant, who died in 1999 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. During the trial, the jury heard that Whisnant had been a B.F. Shaw pipefitter in 1966 and worked at DuPont on a contractual basis. The plaintiff attorney argued that Whisnant had negligently and maliciously been exposed to asbestos. However, on March 25 the jury returned their verdict, which effectively found that DuPont was not guilty of negligence. Last week, plaintiff attorney Glen Morgan filed a Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial, stating that the jury’s decision was “contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.” The motion argued that uncontroverted witness testimony established that while working at DuPont Whisnant was exposed to working conditions which posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and that DuPont had admitted knowledge of the danger. The motion says that DuPont cannot dispute that it failed to exercise “ordinary care” in Whisnant’s case. The motion also accused a local publication, The Southeast Texas Record, of publishing material that may have unduly influenced the jury. Morgan claimed the Southeast Texas Record published several reports on the Whisnant case that favored DuPont. The specific instance Morgan cited was an incident in which the publication described evidence presiding Judge Floyd had ruled was not admissible. Morgan argued that a juror who read the article would have learned information which had been excluded from the trial, and may have been unduly influenced in favor of DuPont as a result. Defense attorney M.C. Carrington has defended the jury’s verdict, saying that Morgan’s arguments were simply a rehashing of the points that the jury had already rejected by deciding in favor of the defendant. “…the jury had every reason to reach the decision that they did. There is not any way that the court will find that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding.” Carrington also said that there was not enough evidence to determine whether or not the jury was unduly influenced by The Southeast Texas Record’s coverage of the trial. (Source: Asbestos and Mesothelioma News)