Reply With Quote
The average juror does not have the attention span to sit through a two week trial, digest complicated causation arguments, properly evaluate evidence, and reach the right result. So yes, I do know better.
Trial concluded a week ago this past Monday. My firm, which represents a lot of energy companies, had myself and a partner there observing, along with lawyers from other firms.
The average juror does not have the attention span to sit through a two week trial, digest complicated causation arguments, properly evaluate evidence, and reach the right result. So yes, I do know better.
no appeals then?
they were wrong to rule against your client?
jury thought the evidence met the preponderance standard. you lost that one.
Don't know. Not my case. I was responding to your claim that I wasn't there.
Again, not my client. And not responsive. From what I saw, they weren't paying attention and got it wrong. Do you have any basis to disagree.
I didn't lose. Not my case. And I wouldn't put much purchase in what the jury thought.
indeed, your contempt for the jury is palpable.
And merited as well. You've contributed a lot to this conversation. Thanks.
you've shared nothing but your scorn for other posters and adverse legal results for your own firm. thank you.
And my own personal take on the trial. Which you seem to not get. But I guess that's not important when you have to trot out the same tired cliches while towing the party line, eh comrade?
lol red baiting
I do get it. It's a naked appeal to authority. Please pardon me for not genuflecting.And my own personal take on the trial. Which you seem to not get
No, it's a naked appeal to someone who actually 1) heard the evidence at trial and 2) observed the jury. Your not getting it is still on display.
WH, I'd be more than happy to discuss any substantive reasons why my take on the evidence at testimony at trial is wrong or misguided. For example, let's discuss the reasons why you thought that the defendants toxicologist and air quality experts were not credible. Shall we?
Enjoying watching vy65 destroy winehole
I'd actually be interested in hearing why that is the case.
You think vy65 is an objective observer here? While this wasn't his case, he litigates for the players on the losing side. Not really surprised he's butthurt about the outcome. Are you?
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 04-30-2014 at 06:48 PM.
LOL what?
I'm interested in what was actually discussed and decided. I am extremely skeptical that this family was made ill by the wells, quite frankly. I'd like to hear the viewpoint. Why are you so butthurt? Jesus.
My response was directed at CC. I should have quoted him but I didn't want to repost the obnoxious popcorn image.
Like you, I'd also like to hear the defendants toxicologist and air quality experts testimony so that I could determine for myself if they were credible. But I don't think vy65 is an objective source of the information for the reasons stated upstream. And quite frankly, I'm not interested enough to root through the court proceedings. I'm anything but butthurt. More like apathetic.
1. TCEQ air sampling was conducted at the defendants pad sites -- not at the plaintiffs property.
2. Very little sampling was conducted at the plaintiffs property -- not their house, but their 40 acre tract.
3. Of the sampling done on their property, BTEX was found at levels orders of magnitude less than regulated alert levels (amcv or ESL).
4. The model used by the plaintiffs expert didn't distinguish between the defendant and all other operators in the area (who operate over 100 wells in total compared to defendants 22)
5. Plaintiffs expert -- a soul chemist with no experience in air quality -- has never been to the Barnett shale, never been to a gas well, and has never modeled air.
6. The air model used didn't account for any met data
7. The "expert" claimed things that a first year chemistry student would know was wrong -- ie that heavier air particles don't settle to the ground.
8. There was no evaluation of dose for any of plaintiffs claimed health effects.
Should I continue?
Some of that is interesting. On a side note, I was advised to make sure I try to visit the sites I research because lawyers will ask you that if you're called in as an expert witness. Seems like thats true!
I don't think #6 is all that important as over the course of time it weather data evens out. Assuming they at least took into account prevailing winds and normal temperature and humidity. No sampling over the limit on the property is more suspect though. In cases like these does the jury have to justify their conclusion?
Because his firm lost. At least he gave color to it. His first response was a pure appeal to authority: "I was there. I know better"
and expected me, of all people, to bow down to that.
hard to believe he didn't know the likely reply.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
