Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00123/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00123-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN N. HALL and JEAN M. HALL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0123 OWW SMS

JUDGMENT ON VERDICTS OF

TRIAL JURY AND DISPOSING OF

ALL CLAIMS OF ALL PARTIES

This case, brought by Plaintiffs, Brian N. Hall and Jean

Hall against Defendant North American Industrial Services, Inc.

(“NAIS”), came on regularly for jury trial on October 30, 2007,

in Courtroom 3 of the above-entitled court, before United States

District Judge Oliver W. Wanger. A jury of eight persons was

duly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were called, sworn and

testified. After hearing the evidence, the jury was duly

instructed on the law by the Court. After arguments of counsel,

the case was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated

commencing November 20, 2007, and returned its Verdicts of Trial

Jury which Verdicts were in words and figures as follows: 

We, the jury in the above-entitled case, answer the

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

questions submitted to us as follows:

Question 1: Was NAIS negligent?

Yes X No_____

If you answered Question 1 “yes,” answer Question 2. If you

answered Question 1 “no,” do not answer Question 2, instead,

answer Question 3.

Question 2: Was the negligence of NAIS a cause of Brian

Hall’s harm?

Yes X No_____

Answer Question 3.

Question 3: Was NAIS engaged in explosive deslagging?

Yes X No_____

If you answered Question 3 yes, answer Question 4. If you

answered Questions 1 and 2 “yes,” and Question 3 “no,” answer

Question 7, or if you answered Questions 1 or 2 and 3 “no,”

answer no further questions. Sign, date and return this verdict.

Question 4: Was Brian N. Hall harmed?

Yes X No_____

If you answered Question 4 “yes,” answer Question 5. If you

answered Questions 1 and 4 “no,” or 2 and 4 “no,” answer no

further Questions. Sign, date and return this verdict.

Question 5: Was Brian N. Hall’s harm the kind of harm that

would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by explosive

deslagging?

Yes X No_____

If you answered Question 5 “yes,” answer Question 6. If you

answered Questions 1 and 5 “no,” or 2 and 5 “no,” sign, date and

return this verdict.

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Question 6: Was the explosive deslagging by NAIS a cause of

Brian N. Hall’s harm?

Yes X No_____

If your answer to Question 6 or your answer to Questions 1

and 2 is “yes,” then answer Question 7. If you answered “no,” to

Questions 1 or 2 and 3, 4, 5, or 6, sign, date and return this

verdict.

Question 7: What are Brian N. Hall’s total damages? Do not

reduce the damages based on the fault, if any, of Brian N. Hall

or anyone else.

a. Past economic loss including:

Lost Earnings $ 200,913.00

Medical expenses $ 2,841,045.20

b. Future economic loss, including:

Lost earnings $ 1,987,209.00

Medical expenses $ 2,235,579.00

c. Past non-economic loss,

including physical pain 

and mental suffering $15,000,000.00

d. Future non-economic loss,

including physical pain and 

mental suffering $ 5,000,000.00

If Brian Hall has proved any damages, answer Question 8. If

Brian Hall has not proved any damages, answer no further

questions and sign, date and return this verdict.

Question 8: Was Brian Hall negligent?

Yes X No_____

If your answer to Question 8 is “yes,” answer Question 9. 

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

If your answer to Question 8 is “no,” answer Question 10.

Question 9: Was Brian Hall’s negligence a cause of his

harm?

Yes X No_____

Answer Question 10.

Question 10: Was AES Mendota negligent?

Yes X No_____

If your answer to Question 10 is “yes,” answer Question 11. 

If your answer to Question 10 is “no,” answer Question 12.

Question 11: Was AES Mendota’s negligence a cause of Brian

Hall’s harm?

Yes X No_____

Answer Question 12.

Question 12: What percentage of responsibility for Brian

Hall’s harm do you assign to the following:

NAIS 75 %

AES Mendota 20 %

Brian Hall 5 %

Gotaverken 0 %

TOTAL 100 %

Answer Question 13.

Question 13: Did Jean M. Hall suffer harm for loss of her

husband’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,

protection, affection, society and moral support that was caused

by fault of NAIS?

Yes X No_____

If you answered Question 13 “yes,” answer Question 14. If

you answered Question 13 “no,” sign and return this verdict.

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Question 14: What is the amount of any damages suffered by

Jean Hall?

$ 250,000.00 

Sign, date and return this verdict form.

Our answers to each of the questions on this verdict form

are unanimous.

DATED: November 26, 2007.

 /s/ Margaret Head 

 Foreperson

Following the reading of the verdict, the jury was polled. 

Each of the eight jurors confirmed that every answer and every

finding on the verdict form was her or his true verdict.

The parties have stipulated that the total amount of

workers’ compensation benefits received by Plaintiff, Brian N.

Hall, to the date of trial included medical bills actually paid

in the sum of $1,143,117, including temporary disability actually

paid in the sum of $95,378. 

JUDGMENT

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by reason of the Verdicts of

Trial Jury, the above-named Plaintiffs, Brian N. Hall and Jean M.

Hall, are entitled to judgment against Defendant NAIS and

judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiffs against

Defendant NAIS in the amounts set forth below:

Brian L. Hall shall recover damages against NAIS as follows:

Past Wage Loss 

(reduced by 5%) $ 190,867.00

Past Medical Bills

(actual by stipulation) $ 1,085,961.00

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Future Wage Loss

(reduced by 5%) $ 1,887,848.00

Future Medical Bills

(reduced by 5%) $ 2,123,800.00

Subtotal $ 5,288,476.00

Less offset for workers’

compensation benefits of 

21.7736% (calculated by total

economic damages as a percent

of total damages) $ 269,664.94

Subtotal $ 5,018,811.06

Past Non-Economic Damages

(reduced to 75%) $11,250,000.00

Future Non-Economic Damages

(reduced to 75%) $ 3,750,000.00

Total Award $20,018,811.00

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Brian N. Hall for

damages against Defendant, NAIS, in the amount of $20,018,811.00. 

The judgment shall bear interest at the Federal rate provided by

law commencing from the date of entry of this Judgment in the

amount of 3.3% until said Judgment is paid in full. 

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, Jean M. Hall, for

damages from Defendant, NAIS, in the amount of $187,500.00. The

Judgment shall bear interest at the Federal rate provided by law

commencing from the date of entry of this Judgment in the amount

of 3.3% until said Judgment is paid in full. 

Plaintiffs, Brian N. Hall and Jean M. Hall, shall recover

their costs of suit against NAIS. 

The following Judgments are entered in favor of the

following parties in related cross-actions, pursuant to voluntary

dismissals and orders of the Court determining Motions for

Summary Judgment: AES Corporation has been voluntarily dismissed

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

by Plaintiffs and judgment shall be entered in favor of AES

Corporation and against Brian N. Hall and Jean M. Hall, each such

party to bear his, her, or its own costs.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of third party Defendant,

AES Corporation, against Defendant and third party Plaintiff,

NAIS, pursuant to Order for Summary Judgment dated October 11,

2007, on the third party complaint of NAIS. 

Judgment shall be entered in favor of third party Defendant,

AES Mendota LP, against third party Plaintiff, NAIS, on the

cross-claim of NAIS, pursuant to Order for Summary Judgment dated

October 11, 2007.

NAIS voluntarily dismissed Mendota Biomass Power Ltd., and

judgment shall be entered in favor of Mendota Biomass Power Ltd.,

against NAIS, each such party to bear its own costs. 

Cross-Defendant AES Corporation shall recover its costs of

suit against NAIS on the NAIS’s third party complaint. 

Cross-Defendant AES Mendota LP shall recover its costs of

suit against NAIS on NAIS’s third party complaint. 

The parties have stipulated that the effect of this Judgment

shall be stayed for seven days following the date of service by

the Clerk of Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00123-OWW -SMS Document 238 Filed 12/12/07 Page 7 of 7