DuPont seeks another continuance for asbestos retrial
Still waiting on the ruling of a higher court, DuPont De Nemours has filed a motion for continuance for the retrial of an asbestos lawsuit.
Since 2007, the Southeast Texas Record has reported on the asbestos litigation filed by plaintiff Caryl Richardson on behalf of her deceased father and refinery worker, Willis Whisnant Jr.
DuPont won a jury verdict in early 2008. However, Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, tossed out the jury's decision and granted plaintiff's attorney Glen Morgan's motion for a new trial without any explanation for the ruling.
Last September, Judge Floyd, at the request of DuPont, granted a motion for continuance, placing the case on his September 2012 docket, court records show.
Court records show DuPont filed another unopposed motion for continuance on July 5, asking Judge Floyd to continue the case once again because the Supreme Court is considering a critical issue related to his order in granting a new trial.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug. 16.
Following two appeals and numerous hearings, in July 2009 the Texas Supreme Court ordered Judge Floyd to disclose his reasons for granting the new trial, court records show.
The judge has yet to give his reasons.
DuPont's motion states that the Supreme Court's ruling in the case In re United Scaffolding will have relevance to the order in its case.
The state's high court heard oral arguments on the United Scaffolding case on Oct. 6.
Court records show that Whisnant, a former subcontractor for DuPont, was in his late 70s when he died from mesothelioma.
Judge Floyd signed a final judgment on April 17, 2008.
Following the no negligence verdict, plaintiff's attorney John Morgan, of the Beaumont law firm Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence did not support the jury's verdict.
He also accused the Southeast Texas Record of jury tampering and of being agents of DuPont, court papers say.
Floyd granted the motion in a May 28, 2008, order, but offered no explanation for his decision.
DuPont is represented in part by MehaffyWeber attorney Sandra Clark.
Case No. E159-183Q