UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

 

This Document Relates to: 

Baker v. 3M Company 

Case No. 7:20-cv-00039

 Case No. 3:19-md-2885 

 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

 

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 7
1 

WE, THE JURY FIND: 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1 (Failure to Warn)

Did Defendants supply a product that was not reasonably safe because adequate 

warnings or instructions were not provided with the product, and was that unsafe 

condition of the product a proximate cause of Mr. Baker’s injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2 (Post-Sale Failure to Warn)

Were Defendants negligent in that the product was not reasonably safe because 

adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was 

manufactured, and was Defendants’ negligence a proximate cause of Mr. Baker’s 

injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3 (Design Defect)

Did Defendants supply a product that was not reasonably safe as designed, and was 

that unsafe condition of the product a proximate cause of Mr. Baker’s injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4 (Fraudulent Misrepresentation)

Did Defendants make a fraudulent misrepresentation about the CAEv2, and was that 

fraudulent misrepresentation a proximate cause of Mr. Baker’s injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 7
2 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5 (Fraudulent Concealment)

Did Defendants commit fraudulent concealment, and was that fraudulent 

concealment a proximate cause of Mr. Baker’s injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

If you answered “Yes” to one or more of Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, then proceed to 

Interrogatory No. 6. If you answered “No” to all of Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, do not 

answer the remaining questions. Please date and sign the verdict form. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 6 (Damages) 

What amount of money will reasonably and fairly compensate Mr. Baker? Do not 

deduct for Mr. Baker’s percentage of fault, if any, under Interrogatory No. 7 below. 

The Court will perform those calculations, if necessary. 

Future medical expenses $ ________________ 

Future loss of earning capacity $ ________________ 

Past pain and suffering (mental and physical) $ ________________ 

Future pain and suffering (mental and physical) $ ________________ 

Disability $ ________________ 

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 7
3 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7 (Apportionment of Fault)1 

A. Do you find that the United States Army was negligent, and that such 

negligence was a proximate cause of Mr. Baker’s injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

B. Do you find that Mr. Baker was negligent, and that his negligence was a 

proximate cause of his injuries? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

C. “Total combined fault” includes all of the forms of fault, based on your 

answers to the previous questions, that you found proximately caused Mr. Baker’s 

injuries. Assume that 100% represents the total combined fault that proximately 

caused Mr. Baker’s injuries. What percent, if any, of this 100% is attributable to each 

of the following parties? Your total must equal 100%. 

Defendants _____% 

Plaintiff _____% (Fill out only if you answered “Yes” to 

Interrogatory No. 7.B above.) 

United States Army _____% (Fill out only if you answered “Yes” to 

Interrogatory No. 7.A above.)

TOTAL 100 % 

1

 As noted in footnote 2 to Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions, Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment on Defendants’ apportionment defense is currently pending. 

Plaintiff further reserves the right to contest the propriety of contributory-negligence 

and apportionment instructions. Plaintiff also contests the propriety of an 

assumption-of-the-risk defense. To the extent an interrogatory is warranted, Plaintiff 

proposes this one. 

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 7
4 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8 (Statute of Limitations)2

A. Did Mr. Baker know, or in the exercise of due diligence should have 

discovered, the causal relationship between (1) Defendants’ misconduct and (2) his 

injuries before June 20, 2016? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

B. If you answered “Yes” to Interrogatory No. 8.A, did Defendants engage in 

some affirmative conduct or remain silent and fail to disclose material information 

that prevented or delayed Mr. Baker from filing this action until after June 20, 2016? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

C. Did Mr. Baker discover the facts constituting Defendants’ fraud before 

June 20, 2016? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

2

 As noted in footnote 3 to Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions, if Defendants assert 

a statute-of-limitations defense, Plaintiff proposes this interrogatory. 

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 7
5 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9 (Intermediary Defense)3

A. Do you find that Defendants sold the CAEv2 to the United States Army; that 

the Defendants warned the Army about all of the particular risks and limitations of 

the CAEv2; and that the Defendants conveyed adequate instructions for the proper 

use of the CAEv2 to the Army? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

B. Do you find that Defendants sold the CAEv2 to the Army; that the Army had 

actual knowledge of all of the particular risks and limitations of the CAEv2; and that 

the Army had adequate instructions for the proper use of the CAEv2? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

C. If you answered “Yes” to the questions under Interrogatory No. 9.A and/or 

Interrogatory No. 9.B, do you find that Defendants discharged their duty to warn 

Mr. Baker by relying on the Army to warn Mr. Baker? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

3

 For the reasons stated in footnote 4 to Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions, 

Plaintiff objects to including any intermediary defense on the Verdict Form. To the 

extent an interrogatory is warranted, Plaintiff proposes this one. 

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 7
6 

INTERROGATORY NO. 10 (Superseding Cause)4

Do you find that the actions of the United States Army were the sole proximate 

cause of Mr. Baker’s injuries and were unforeseeable to Defendants? 

YES ________ 

NO ________ 

__________________ _____________________________ 

DATE FOREPERSON 

Please hand your completed and signed verdict form to the bailiff and return to the 

courtroom. 

4

 As noted in footnote 5 to Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions, Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment on Defendants’ superseding-cause defense is currently 

pending. For the reasons stated in footnote 5, Plaintiff further objects to including 

superseding cause on the Verdict Form. To the extent an interrogatory is warranted, 

Plaintiff proposes this one. 

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 92 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 7