This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Water Contamination
Toxic Waste

Dorothy Adams, et al. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Published: Jun. 14, 2008 | Result Date: Dec. 4, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC233964 Settlement –  $24,300,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central West


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas J. Anton

Michael P. Dolan

Joy L. Robertson

Stephen P. Wainer


Defendant

Ernest J. Getto

Kirk A. Wilkinson
(Latham & Watkins LLP)


Facts

Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Co. used chromium 6, a carcinogen, to inhibit rust at the Hinkley gas compressor station in the Mojave Desert. The plaintiffs, 104 past and present residents of Hinkley, were exposed to the carcinogen as a result of water contamination, which was featured in the movie "Erin Brockovich." Water contamination reports from 1964 showed defendant flushed chromium 6 into nearby ponds, which then seeped into the water table. The defendant stopped using the rust inhibitor in 1972 but did not disclose the contamination until 1987. Plaintiffs were exposed to the contamination through drinking water, breathing in the mist, or swimming in pools of water transported from defendant's plan. They sued defendant alleging negligence, strict liability and fraud.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS; The plaintiffs contended defendant knew about the water contamination since 1964 yet made no disclosure until 1987. Plaintiffs were not part of the earlier litigation because they had moved away from Hinkley and did not find out about the contamination until Erin Brockovich was released. They were also unaware because defendant tried to limit the exposure to a defined area in which some plaintiffs did not live.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that plaintiffs were barred by the statute of limitations because they failed to act diligently after discovering the contamination several years ago. They also should have known of the conduct giving rise to a cause of action, considering the wide publicity surrounding the contamination. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' claimed injuries were not caused by chromium 6.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount in damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering.

Injuries

The plaintiffs suffered from multiple illnesses, including cancer; reproductive problems; skin rashes; nasal and sinus problems.

Result

The plaintiffs in three consolidated cases reached a settlement in the amount of $24.3 million.


#102930

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390