When speaking about DuPont's asbestos policies during the 1960s, plaintiff's attorney Glen Morgan said in his opening remarks that the chemical company's "conduct was so bad that its right to exist should be taken away," as the trial of Willis Whisnat et al vs. DuPont De Nemours began Thursday, Feb. 21.
Morgan, a partner in the Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law firm, represents the family of the late Willis Whisnat Jr., who recently died of mesothelioma Ã¯Â¿Â½ a cancerous lung condition.
Whisnat, a pipefitter who smoked throughout his adult life, worked at DuPont's Sabine Works facility back in 1966 as an independent contractor, where he was allegedly exposed to enough asbestos fibers to contract the fatal disease.
Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral, is an excellent fire retardant and was wildly used by industrial companies, like DuPont, in the early decades of the 20th century to insulate pipes, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
After Whisnat's death, his family joined an ongoing class-action suit against DuPont and several other oil and chemical companies, which was first filed in the Jefferson County District Court on June 4, 1998. The class members claim DuPont negligently and maliciously exposed workers to asbestos when the company knew asbestos dust ad fibers created health hazards.
Whisnat's case was severed. The five other defendants named in his suit settled. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, is presiding over the trial.
"The Defendant (DuPont) knew of the toxicity of asbestos prior to the first exposure of Decedent (Whisnat) to the defective and unreasonably dangerous material on its premises," Morgan wrote in the suit.
Morgan continues by writing, "Plaintiffs will not seek an amount in excess of $4,100,000,000, excluding pre- and post-judgment interest and costs of court, as compensation for Plaintiffs' damages."
If Morgan has his way and DuPont is forced out of existence, more than 94,000 people would lose their jobs. However, Morgan did say during opening remarks that he would not ask jurors to award his clients billions of dollars.
Morgan continued by comparing the chemical company to killers on trial who deserve, in his opinion, to be executed. "There are some corporations whose rights Ã¯Â¿Â½ to exist should be taken away."
The plaintiffs maintain that Dupont knew about the dangers of asbestos as early as 1940, but chose to conceal their findings and focus on a defense to protect the company from lawsuits rather than implement policies that would save the lives of its workers.
DuPont's attorneys argue that its 1940s studies only focused on people who were "heavily" exposed to asbestos on a daily basis, like miners for example, not chemical plant workers.
DuPont also argues that the chemical company was a consumer not a producer of asbestos-containing products, placing product liability on the seller Ã¯Â¿Â½ and took steps to protect its employees from asbestos before OSHA implemented asbestos guidelines in 1972.
In addition, DuPont contends Whisnat was an independent contractor, not a DuPont employee, and therefore Whisnat's employer, B.F. Shaw, was directly responsible for his safety. And even though he was not a DuPont employee, the company still protected Whisnat from asbestos by requiring pipe workers to wear respirators.
DuPont protected its other workers by barricading asbestos-laced pipe worksites.
The plaintiffs, however, argue that asbestos fibers can drift beyond the barricade, which only consisted of yellow caution tape.
DuPont is represented locally by the Mehaffy Weber law firm.
Case No. E159-183-Q