Sullins et al v. Exxon/Mobil Corporation

Filing 96

CORRECTED VERDICT FORM entered on July 21, 2010. (cwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2010)

Sullins et al v. Exxon/Mobil Corporation

Doc. 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARLTON SULLINS, an individual, RITA SULLINS, an individual, DON-SUL, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. EXXON/MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant. / No. 08-04927 CW VERDICT FORM

We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the following verdict on the following questions submitted to us. "Plaintiffs"

shall refer to Plaintiffs Carlton A. Sullins, Rita Sullins and DonSul, Inc. "ExxonMobil" shall refer to Defendant ExxonMobil

Corporation. We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 1. Did ExxonMobil cause any portion of the contamination on the property located at 187 North L. Street, Livermore, California. (Property)? Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 1 is "Yes," then answer question 2. If you answered "No," stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

2. Did contamination caused by ExxonMobil substantially and unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs' use or enjoyment of the

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Property? Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 2 is "Yes," then answer question 3. If you answered "No," stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

3. Would an ordinary person have been reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the contamination caused by ExxonMobil? Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 3 is "Yes," then answer question 4. If you answered "No," stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

4. Was the contamination caused by ExxonMobil a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs? Yes ____ No ____

If your answer to question 4 is "Yes," then answer question 5. If you answered "No," stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

5. If all the contamination on Plaintiffs' property is represented as 100%, what percentage of the contamination do you find was caused by ExxonMobil? ________%

6. The parties agree that Plaintiffs incurred costs in the amount of $42,377.95 to investigate and remediate all of the 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

contamination on their Property between September 24, 2005 and today that were not reimbursed by the Underground Storage Tank Fund. What amount, if any, of these costs do you find was caused

by ExxonMobil's conduct? $__________

Please have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Signed:____________________ Presiding Juror Dated: ____________________

After this verdict form has been signed, please deliver it to the clerk or bailiff.

3