Duren et al v. E I duPont de Nemours and Company et al

Filing 142

JUDGMENT on 127 81 Orders in favor of J J's Truck Stop Inc against E I DuPont De Nemours and Company in the amount of $28,829.83 and postjudgment interest as provided by law; in favor of Al's Truck Stop of Malvern Inc against E I DuPont De Nemours and Company in the amount of $197,800.00 and postjudgment interest as provided by law; dismissing James and Ann Duren's claim against DePont with prejudice. Postjudgment interest will accrue at 0.20% per annum from today's date until the judgments are paid. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/19/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES DUREN; ANN DUREN;
J.J.'S TRUCK STOP, INC.; and
AL'S TRUCK STOP OF MALVERN, INC.
/'

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 4:09-cv-713-DPM

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION,
LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10

DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT
The Court has, in earlier orders, dismissed with or without prejudice
all of the Plaintiffs' claims against all Defendants except Plaintiffs' negligence
claim against DuPont for business-interruption damages and loss-of-sale
damages.

Document Nos. 81 & 12 7.

The Court now enters judgment

accordingly on those prior orders.
Before trial, DuPont admitted liability on the negligence claim for any
damages proximately caused by the tanker incident. Document No. 126. The
parties tried the remaining pieces of the negligence claim- proximate cause
and damages-to a twelve-person jury from 9 July 2012 to 13 July 2012. At
the close of Plaintiffs' case, DuPont moved for judgment as a matter of law as
to the lost-sale part of the negligence claim. The Court denied the motion.

Plaintiffs also moved for judgment as a matter of law on both the lost-sale and
business-interruption aspects of their negligence claim. The Court denied that
motion too. At the close of all the evidence, DuPont renewed its motion for
judgment as a matter of law. The Court denied the motion in part and took
the motion under advisement in part.
After deliberations, the jury returned its verdict on July 13th. It reads:
/'

VERDICT

1. How much lost profit at J.J.'s (the restaurant) was
proximately caused by the tanker incident?

$ 28,829.83

2. How much lost profit at Al's (the truck stop) was
proximately caused by the tanker incident?

$ 197,800.00

/'

3. Did the tanker incident proximately cause the Durens to
lose the prospective sale of the stock of J.J.'s and Al's to B.C.
Edmisten and his investors?
./

- - - Yes

No

If you answered Question 3 "yes," then answer Question 4. If you
answered question 3 "no," then your work is done.
-2-

t'

4. What amount of money will fairly and reasonably
compensate the Durens today for the profit, if any, the Durens
would have realized from the lost prospective sale of the stock
in J.J.' sand in AI' s?
$_0_

Is! Alisha Crane
Foreperson
7/13 1:35p
Date and Time
Document No. 138. In light of the jury's verdict, the Court denied the parts of
t'

DuPont's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law taken under
advisement as moot.
On the negligence claim, the Court enters judgment on the jury's verdict
for J.J.' sTruck Stop, Inc., and against DuPont for $28,829.83 and postjudgment
interest as provided by law. The Court also enters judgment on the jury's
verdict for AI' s Truck Stop of Malvern, Inc., and against DuPont for
$197,800.00 and postjudgment interest as provided by law. Last, based on the
jury's verdict, the Court dismisses James and Ann Duren's claim against
DuPont with prejudice. Postjudgment interest will accrue at 0.20% per

-3-

annum from today's date until the judgments are paid.

28 U.S.C. §

1961(a)-(b).
While DuPont triumphed on the alleged loss-of-sale damages, the Court
c0ncludes that, considering the case as a whole, J.J.'s and Al's are prevailing
parties entitled to Rule 54(d)(l) costs. If the parties cannot agree on those
costs, then J.J .' s and AI' s should document and move for them by 3 August
2012.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
f/
United States District Judge

-4I'