Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
_____________
____________________
ALDRICH,
Defendant United
Shield of New
product known
Hampshire, with a
as CAFCO.
This
Cross and
spray-on fireproofing
was applied
to some
of the
contains asbestos,
atmospheric
that
any
pollution
and
when not
reconstruction
and
while
that
disturbed,
even
does
its offices.
not
cause
plaintiff found
building
maintenance
various
choices with
In 1987 plaintiff
respect
to the
building:
Even this
last raised
problems.
future, if
not immediate,
fire code
testing, and
At
plaintiff's
motion,
the
court set
of deliberation
amount of $532,000.
the
verdict
On
aside and
-2-
of $886,872,1
complaining that
that
if a
there should
new trial
was
Defendant appeals,
have been
proper, it
no new
should have
trial, but
included
liability.
We affirm.
With respect
court
wrote a
to granting a
thoughtful opinion,
special
instructions
sought, and
concept
reasons,
on the
new trial
giving
at all
several reasons.
sua
___
measure
of
excepted to its
that if defendant
liability),
plaintiff
replacement
irrespective
culpa,
_____
was
too
damages.
One of
abbreviated
Plaintiff
was
entitled
of
what
to
the
future
remedial
it did nothing.
had
of the
or strict
costs
of
procedure
it
For this
it
plaintiff had
tend to reduce
the damages.
Second, the court agreed
had been
error in
respect to
the testimony
of defendant's
Halliwell, had
____________________
1. The second jury had been allowed to include an item for
which the court later concluded defendant was not chargeable.
-3-
given
seven figure
estimates of
the
cost of
removal, and
- $700,000.
F.2d 354
objection,
his
(1st
Plaintiff
objected, properly,
factual assumptions as
However,
over plaintiff's
to the amount
of CAFCO present,
this:
for
he
Morse
would be
already
expressed
material
in
building than
obvious,
and
the
added
opinion
nothing,
there
Halliwell
for
Morse
was no
prejudice.
The
much
assumed,
to
was
only regard
effect of
as a theatrical
the specifics
difficulty was
his
Hence, defendant
difficulty is
attempt to
it was
say that
less
that the
in what
produce the
had excluded.
The
its fingers.
well
find,
in
light
"substantially,
of
the
verdict,
substantially
that
affected"
the
as
jury
took
warranting
excluded specifics.
No one had
-4-
that low.
to
feel that the jury had been misled, and plaintiff prejudiced.
There were some other possible grounds for granting
a new trial on damages, but we need go no further.
The court
complaint,
liability (and
new trial.
on
to
include
the
issue
of
motion
carefully
the
for reconsideration.
answered.
Defendant
was, nevertheless,
repeatedly
tells
us that
Phav
____
If it
had argued
defendant
contend.
this in terms
compromise verdict
liability
and
except to
dwell on
problem.
of its being a
As
damages;
none
It did not so
nor
has
defendant suggested
plaintiff's differing
of
these
solutions
solutions of
raised
-5-
any,
its
separate