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.

Personal Injury (Non-Vehicular)
Negligence
Toxic Exposure

Ross C. Gunnell, et al. v. Sony Pictures, Inc., et al.

Published: May 1, 1999 | Result Date: Apr. 14, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC137271 Verdict –  $6,678,480

Judge

Paul Boland

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Martina A. Silas


Defendant

David L. Schaffer

Russell D. Hiles


Experts

Plaintiff

Edward J. Faeder
(technical)

James G. Dahlgren M.D.
(medical)

Richard J. Perrillo Ph.D.
(medical)

Richard S. Hanson
(technical)

Defendant

William G. Hughson
(medical)

Michael P. Ward
(technical)

Arnold D. Purisch M.D.
(medical)

Facts

In 1989, plaintiff Ross Gunnell, then a 26-year-old studio laborer, was sent by his union to various studio facilities for various unskilled labor jobs, such as helping to dismantle sets, moving furniture, etc. In February 1989, he was sent to the Metrocolor Laboratories, a large movie film developing laboratory, located on what is now the Sony Pictures Studios movie lot. The plaintiff was given unlabeled 55-gallon barrels of a blue-green cleaning substance to use to clean the ceilings, floors and walls of the film developing laboratory, which were quite filthy. The plaintiff was not told that the materials were toxic, and was expressly told that the materials were safe. At one point, the plaintiff actually saw his foreman removing labels from the barrels, but thought nothing of it, since he was told the materials were safe. Other than paper masks, and rubber gloves, which disintegrated during use, the plaintiff was given no protective gear to use during his job. While working, over a four and a half month period, the plaintiff would become soaked with the cleaning solution, and it would get on his body, in his hair and elswehere on his skin. At no time prior to leaving the laboratory was the plaintiff given any hazard training, nor specific information about what the substance was, other than it was a "harmless" cleaning solution. The plaintiff left the laboratory and went to other jobs in June of 1989. The film laboratory closed down in the summer of 1989, and its assets and liabilities were transferred, through a convoluted serires of mergers, to Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., also named as a defendant. Over the next several years, the plaintiff developed numerous health problems, including skin sensitivity, night sweats, memory problems mood problems, insomnia, anxiety attacks and difficulties with his temper. Prior to 1994, he did not know what the cause of these problems were. In October 1994, during a conversation with an acquaintance, he was told that there were toxic substances used in the film laboratory. Extensive neuropsychological and medical testing revealed that plaintiff had an objectively verifiable cognitive brain dysfunciton, as did some of his co-workers, who were also plaintiffs in the law suit. The initial law suit was filed against the film laboratory, the studio lot (on a strict liability/ultrahazardous activity theory, as well as a premises liability theory) and several manufacturers and distributors of chemicals known to be on the premises at the time. The law suit also contained a cause of action for intentional battery, claiming that the removal of labels, and the recklessness of the conduct of the laboratory, rose to the level of an intentional act. Plaintiff tried for years to determine the exact identity of the blue-green cleaning solvent. He learned, just six weeks before the trial commenced, that the substance was a commercial cleaner that contained two toxic substances; 2-butoxyethanol and sodium hydroxide. 2-butoxyethanol is highly toxic, and has been scientifically proven to be readily absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream. During the trial, the judge granted motions for directed verdicts in favor of the studio lot defendants, and also granted motions for directed verdicts on three consolidated plaintiff cases on grounds of statute of limitations, exlusive remedy and lack of product identification, respectively. Those rulings are being appealed. The only case submitted to the jury was the case of Ross Gunnell, who the trial judge found to be an employee of the only remaining defendant. Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, the successor in interest to Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. *****

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $750,000 (to Metrocolor Laboratories and Time Warner Entertainment Co.). The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer for $275. No other settlement discussions took place at any time during the case.

Specials in Evidence

$6,000 $130,000 $850,000 $100,000

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered from cognitive brain dysfunction, leading to slowness in brain processing speed, which, according to plaintiff's neuropsychologist, rendered him totally and permanently disabled. The plaintiff also suffers from memory loss, sensitivities to certain substances and from severe psychological problems, including paranoia, anxiety, mood and temper problems requiring extensive treatment and medication throughout his lifetime, and will not be fully recovered.

Result

**** CONTINUATION OF FACTS: Because of the finding that Gunnell was an employee of the only remaining defendant, the judge instructed the jury that, in order to find for the plaintiff, the jury must find that the defendant specifically intended to cause the plaintiff's injury, which would bring the case within the willful physical assault exception to workers compensation exlusivity rule set forth in Labor Code º 3602 after defendant's designated hazard communication expert Howard Spielman, admitted that the described behavior violated the law, the defense withdrew him as an expert.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and eight months after the case was filed. The plaintiffs had also sued a number of chemical manufacturers and distributors. One chemical manufacturer successfully moved for summary judgment. The remaining supplier cases were resolved confidentially in exchange for dismissals prior to the trial.

Deliberation

two days (compensatory), 1½ days (punitive)

Poll

11-1 (liability), 10-2 (compensatory damages), 9-3 (punitive damages)

Length

4½ weeks


#109956

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

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