Hiser v. XTO Energy Inc

Filing 84

JUDGMENT in favor of Ruby Hiser and against XTO Energy Inc in the amount of $300,000.00, together with post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.18% per annum from the date of the Judgment until paid pursuant to 76 Jury Verdict. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/10/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
RUBY HISER

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:11-cv-00517 KGB

XTO ENERGY INC.

DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT

This matter came for trial by jury on the 271h day of August, 2012. Plaintiff Ruby Hiser
appeared through her attorneys Maryna 0. Jackson and Stephen Rauls. Defendant XTO Energy Inc.
appeared through its corporate representative, Jamie Sorrells, and its attorneys James D. Rankin III
and Julie DeWoody Greathouse. All parties announced ready for trial. A jury of twelve was duly
selected and sworn.
On August 29, 2012, the jury returned a verdict as follows:
1. On the claim of Ms. Hiser against XTO Energy for negligence we find by a preponderance of the
evidence in favor of:
Ms. Hiser
(Ms. Hiser)

or

(XTO Energy)

2. On the claim of Ms. Hiser against XTO Energy for private nuisance we find by a preponderance
of the evidence in favor of:
Ms. Hiser
(Ms. Hiser)

or

(XTO Energy)

3. On the claim of Ms. Hiser against XTO Energy for trespass we find by a preponderance of the
evidence in favor of:
Ms. Hiser
(Ms. Hiser)

or

(XTO Energy)

Note: Answer Question 4 only if one the above findings is in favor of Ms. Hiser. If ALL of the
above findings are in favor of XTO Energy, have your foreperson sign and date the form
because you have completed your deliberations on this case.
4. We find that Ms. Hiser should be awarded compensatory damages in the amount of:

$

100 000

(stating the amount)

5. Has it been proved that XTO Energy knew or ought to have known in the light of the surrounding
circumstances, that its conduct would naturally and probably result in damage and that it continued
such conduct in reckless disregard of the consequences from which malice may be inferred?

X

Yes

No

Note: If you answered yes to Question 5, you should award punitive damages to punish XTO
Energy and to deter XTO Energy and others from similar conduct.
6. We find that Ms. Hiser should be awarded punitive damages in the amount of:

$

Foreperson:

Dated:

200 000

(stating the amount)

Is/ Michael Horn

8129/12

Judgment is therefore entered in favor of Ruby Hiser against XTO Energy Inc. in the amount
of $300,000.00, together with post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.18% per annum from the date
of the Judgment until paid.
SO ORDERED this 101h day of September, 2012.

Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge