I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CA- 0 1 3 8 0 - S CT UNION C

AR BI DE CORP ORAT

ION
v. R US S EL L E . NI

X , J R . , A SE X E C UTOR OF

T HE ES TAT E OF RUS

S ELL E. NI

X, S R.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 26/ 2012 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. BI L L Y J OE L ANDR UM COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ONES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : L AUR A DE VAUGH N GOOD S ON M AR CY BRY AN CRO FT T HOMAS P E YT ON S M I T H E L I Z AB E T H B AR NW E L L KE L L Y T UR L E Y M I CHAEL GE ORGE TE RRY ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: GLE NN G ATE S TAYLOR CH RI S T Y M I CH E L L E S P AR KS J AM ES COLLI NS FERRELL C. GR ANT HE DGE P E T H NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI SP OSI TI ON : AFFI RM ED I N PA RT; REV ERSED I N PA RT; VAC AT E D I N P AR T AND R E M ANDE D - 06/ 05/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A f

t err ece i vi ng a d i agn osi s of m esot hel i om a, R us s el l N i x f i l ed s ui tagai ns t U ni on C a rb id e b a se d o n h is e x p o su re to its a sb e sto s p ro d u c ts. T h e ju ry re tu rn e d a v e rd ict fo r N ix

### Aft er two- and- a- hal f years , Nix was promot ed and, whi lehes ti llhandl ed the Supe r 1 

### Vis bes tos , hedid s o le ss fr eque ntly, pe rha ps two to thre e tim es a we ek. 2 on hi s i nadequa t e w arni ng cl ai m , aw ar di ng N i x $250, 000 i n com pen s at ory damages and $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h e tri a l co u rt th e n aw a rd e d N ix n e a rly $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in att o rne y ’s fees a n d co sts. A g g ri ev ed , U n ion C arb ide ap p ea ls. T h is C o u rtaffirm s the jury ’s
aw ar d of compensa t ory damages , r ever s es the j ury’ s a w ar d of puni t i ve damages , vaca t es t he
aw ard of att orney’s f

ees, and rem and s the case for a new tri al on pu nit i ve d am ages. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. R us s el l N i x, Sr
. w or ked f orW el l T ech, a dr i l l i ng company, f r om appr oxi m at el y 1980 t o 1986. H i s j ob dut i es i ncl uded m ai ntai ni ng the vi s cos i ty of dr i l l i ng m ud. T w o U ni on C a rb id e p ro d u c ts, V isb e sto s a n d S u p e r V isb e sto s, w e re u se d to h e lp m a in tain th e v isc o sity of dr i l l i ng m ud. T hes e tw o pr oduct s w er e ni nety- ni ne- per centasbe s t os . N i x used a n aver age
o f te n to tw e lv e fifty -p o u n d b a g s o f S u p e r V isb e sto s to m ix th e d rillin g m u d a n d a lso to i ncr eas e vi s cos i ty dur i ng l os s ci r cul at i on event s , and di d s o f ors ever al hour s on m os tdays fo r a p p ro x im a te ly tw o -a n d -a -h a lf y e a rs . T h e s e a c tio n s c re a te d a s b e s to s d u s t.

1 ¶3. I n the l at e 1960s , M ont el l o and U ni on C arbi de combi ned f or ces t o s uppl y V i s bes t os and S up er V i sbest os as dri l l i ng m ud produ ct s. U nion C arbi de m anu fac tured t he p roducts , and M ont el l o w as the i re xc l us i ve di s tr i but or . C orr es pondence betw een the tw o i ndi cat ed that U n io n C a rb id e o fte n to o k it u p o n itse lf to a d v ise M o n tello a s to w h e th e r a n d w h a t sa fe ty i nform at i on t o p rovi de it s cust om ers . ¶4. I n J une 1968, U ni on C arbi de bega n l abel i ng i t s as bes t os pr oduct s s t at i ng W a rn in g : B re a th in g D u st M a y B e H a rm fu l

### 3 D o N o t B re a th e D u st I n 1972, O SH A pr om ul gat ed s t andar ds thatcompani es i nvol ved w i th as bes t os w er e r equi r ed t o f ol l ow . 29 C
. F. R
. § 1910. 1001 ( 1972)
. O SH A cons i der ed, butr ej ect ed, pl aci ng the w or ds “ca ncer ” and “ danger ” on the w arni ng, be caus e they w er e “unw arr ant edl y al arm i ng. ” I d. T he
s t andar ds m andat ed thatpr oduct s c ont ai ni ng a s bes t os be l abel ed, and f ur therm andat ed that the exa ctw or di ng of

the l abel be: C aut i on

C o n tai n s A sb esto s F ibers A vo i d C reat i ng D ust B rea thing A sb esto s D u st M ay C au se S eriou s B o d il y H arm I d. T h e lab e l w a s to “b e p rin ted in le tters o f su ffic ien t size an d co n tra st a s to b e re a d ily vi s i bl e and l egi bl e. ” Id
. I n June 1972, w hen thi s O SH A s t andar d w as pr om ul gat ed, U ni on C arbi de cha nged i t s w arni ngs t o compl y w i th the O SH A w or di ng , w i th i t s l abel s t at i ng
verbat i m the w or ds mandat ed by O SH A
. W hi l e M ont el l o made the bags i n w hi ch V i s bes t os
a n d S u p e r V istb e sto s w e re p a c k a g e d , U n io n C a rb id e w a s th e fin a l d e c isio n -m a k e r w ith
re g a rd to th e a p p e a ra n c e a n d la b e lin g o f t h e b a g s . ¶5
. In 1 9 8 3 , a U n io n C a rb id e in ter n a l c o rre sp o n d e n c e s tate d th a t “ [i ] t i s w id e ly
re c o g n ize d tha t th e m a n d a ted [O S H A ] lab e l un d e rsta tes the risk a ss o c iate d w ith e x p o su re to
as bes t os dus t , and f

orthi s r eas on, i ti s pr opos ed thatthe att ache d l abel be s ubs t i tut ed f ort he O SH A l abel on al l U C C asbe s t os pr oduct s . ” The “att ache d l abel , ” as w el l as one deve l oped
a fe w w e e k s la ter , u se d stro n g e r la n g u a g e th a n d id th e O S H A re g u latio n , sp e c ifica lly
m ent i oni ng thata s bes t os i s a “ canc erha zar d” and the us e of r es pi r at or s . O t her U nion

### “[ W] e s pec if ic al ly do not

rel ea se , cl ai ms f

or . . . me sothel iom a . . . not dia gnose d at 2 

### thetimeof the e xec uti on of this Par ti alRel ea se .” Union Carbi de doe s not

cont es t Ni x’s me sothel iom a d iagn osis. Nix di ed f rom 3 

### me sothel iom a on J anuary 14, 2012. 4 C arbi de corr es pondence i n the 1970s and 1980s m ade c l eart hatU ni on C arbi de r ecogni zed th e risk o f c a n c e r fro m b re a th in g a sb e sto s d u st. ¶6. I n the 1990s , N i x w as i nvol ved i n as bes t os l i t i ga t i on a ga i ns ts e ve r a l de f e nd a nt s , U ni on Ca rb i d e i n c l u d e d
. Ni x a n d Un i o n Ca rb i d e s e t t l e d , a n d Ni x s i g n e d a “ P a r t i a l Re l e a s e . ” On D ece m ber14, 1998, N i x r el eas ed U ni on C arbi de of and f r om any and a l l cl ai m s , caus es orr i ght s of act i on, demands a nd damages of

e very ki nd a nd na tur e w hat s oever , i ncl udi ng, w i thoutl i m i t at i on, al l pr es entand f

utur e cl ai m s that[ N i x] m ay now orher eaf t er hav e i ncl udi ng any and al l asbest os-r el at ed d i seases , i njur i es, cance rs , and / or m al i g n an cies, n o w o ra r i s i n g h e r e a f

t e r , i n c l u d i n g , b u tn o tl i mi t e d t o , l o s s o f c o n s o r t i u m, compani ons hi p, s ervi ce, s uppor t , pai n and s uf f er i ng, i nj ury and dam age of any ki nd, i ncl udi ng the w r ongf ul death of

[ N i x] , w hi ch [ N i x] may now orher eaf t er have a r i s i ng outof

orbei ng i n any w ay r el at ed t o t he pos s i bl e expos ur e of [ N i x] t o a s bes t os oras bes t os - cont ai ni ng pr oduct s m i ned, m anuf actur ed, s ol d, s uppl i ed, ordi s tr i but ed by [ U ni on Carbi de] , w hi ch m ay have c aus ed i nj ur i es o r d a m a g e s to th e m e ith e r j o in tly o r s e v e ra lly , e x c e p t a s m a y b e p re s e rv e d
. .

. b e l o w. T h e P a rtial R e lea se e x p re ss ly e x e m p ted c laim s fo r m e so th e lio m a n o t d iag n o se d a s o f th e d a te of the exe cut i on of

the r el eas e. 2 ¶ 7
. In 2 0 1 0 , N ix w a s d iag n o se d w ith m e so th e lio m a . O n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 1 0 , N ix filed su it 3 ag a i ns tmul t i pl e de f

e nd a nt s f or , i nt e ral i a, negl i gence , des i gn def ect , and i nadequa t e w arni ng,
re latin g to h is e x p o su re to a sb e sto s. O n Ja n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 , N ix a m e n d e d h is c o m p lain t, i ncl udi ng addi ng U ni on Carbi de as a de f endant
. E ventual l y, a l l de f endant s w er e di s m i s s ed
exce ptU ni on C arbi de. T r i al i n the m at t er began on O ct ober3, 2011, on N i x’ s cl ai m s f or

### Prio r to trial, mo st evid entiaryrulin gs w ere made b y a special master, as agre ed to 4 

### bythe p arties. 5 in a d e q u a te w a rn in g a n d d e sig n d e fe c t u n d e r th e M iss iss ip p i P ro d u c ts L iab ili ty A c t. 4 ¶ 8
. A t trial, E d w a rd Z ieg ler tes tified fo r N ix a s a n e x p e rt in the d rilli n g in d u stry , p ro d u c ts
us ed i n the dr i l l i ng i ndus tr y, and w arni ngs a nd s af ety. Z i egl eri s a petr ol eum engi neerw ho
ow ns a s af

ety and petr ol eum consul t i ng fi r m and a sm al l oi l com pany. H e had w or ked i n the dr i l l i ng i ndus tr y s i nce he w as f i f t een ye ar s ol d. H e r ece i ved a B achel orof Sci ence degr ee i n petr ol eum and natur al ga s e ngi neer i ng i n 1972, a nd ha s be en thr ough num er ous tr ai ni ng p ro g ra m s a n d se m in a rs r e g a rd in g d rilli n g . H e re c e iv e d a m a ste r’s d e g re e in sa fe ty engi neer i ng f

r om a n una ccr edi t ed di s t ance l earni ng uni ver s i ty. Z i egl erha s a l s o compl et ed the “ O S H A 5 0 0 ” p rog ram sev era l t im es, w h ich q u ali fi ed h im a s a n O S H A instructo r. Speci f i c t o w arni ngs , Z i egl erhas “ been thr ough N at i onal Saf ety Counci l tr ai ni ng and other
s emi nar s deal i ng w i th w arni ngs and i ns truct i ons . ” H e s t at ed thatone of hi s cour s es on
w arni ngs w as one w eek l ong, and thathe att ended “ s ever al s ever al
- day s emi nar s ” on
w arn ing s. H e also ha d “o n -th e-job training ” reg ard ing w arn ing s i n w o rkin g w ith h is
cons ul t i ng cl i ent s . A ddi t i onal l y, he has w r i t t en w arni ngs f orpr oduct s thathe s el l s and/ or des i gns . Z i egl eradm i t t ed t hathe had ne verw r i t t en any pe er - r evi ew ed art i cl es r egar di ng
w arn ing s, n o r ha d h e p erfo rm ed an y test ing o f w arn ing s th at he ha d w ri tt en . H e d id, ho w ev er, not e thath e h ad w at ched pe opl e i n the f i el d us i ng equi pm entf orw hi ch he ha d w r i t t en
w arni ng s. Z i egleradm i t t ed thathe h ad n ot obtai ned any peer- revi ew ed art i cl es on w arni ng s, the t es t i ng of

w arni ngs , ort he eff

i cacy of w arni ngs . H e f

ur theradmi t t ed thathe w as not t r ai ned i n p s yc ho l og y, a nd the c ou r tc utof f qu e s t i on i ng r e ga r di ng hi s tr a i ni ng i n h um an

### Zieg ler also testifiedthat th e pro du cts’ desig ns were defectiv e and that the p roducts 5 

### did not me et theOSHA st andards in t hat re gard. The O SH A stan dardmentio ns n oth ing abo ut co lor. It states th at warn ing s must “ be 6 pr i nt ed i n l ett er s of

s uf f i ci ents i ze a nd contr as tas t o be r eadi l y vi s i bl e and l egi bl e. ” 29 C
. F
. R
. § 1 9 1 0
. 1 0 0 1 (19 7 2 ). 

### 6 f act or s . U ni on C arbi de ul t i m at el y obj ect ed t o Z i egl er bei ng acc ept ed as an expe r ton
w a rn in g s. T h e c o u rt o v e rru led th e o b jec tio n a n d s tate d th a t U n io n C a rb id e w o u ld b e a b le to
c ro s s -e x a m in e Z ie g le r o n th e w a rn in g s is s u e s . ¶9. Z i egl ert es t i f

i ed thatU ni on C arbi de’ s w arni ngs on the V i s bes t os and Super V i s bes t os b a g s we r e i n a d e q u a t e . He s t a t e d th a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , th e wa rn i n g s d i d n o ts a t i s f y th e OS HA 5
s t andar d thatm andat es “thatw arni ngs have t o have – the w arni ngs have t o ha ve ce r t ai n col or and contras to n t he bag. ” H e not ed thatthe l ett er s w er e “r el at i vel y s m al l , s om e of the 6
s m al l es tl ett er s on the w hol e bag. ” H e cont i nued t hatt he w arni ng f ai l s t o attr actatt ent i on, i nf or m of the haz ar d, i nf

or m how t o avoi d the hazar d, an d i ndi cat e w hatthe r es ul t s of t he haza r d ar e. H e s peci f

i cal l y cr i t i ci zed the w arni ng forfa i l i ng t o us e the w or d “ca ncer , ” f ai l i ng t o i ns tructthe handl ert o w eara re s pi r at or , and f ai l i ng t o us e the w or d “w arni ng. ” H e not ed thatthe pr oducti nher ent l y cr eat es dus t , and t hatt he i ns truct i on t o avoi d cr eat i ng dus ti s “a
us el es s pi ece of

i nf or m at i on. I tdoes n’ tt el l you how t o avoi d the hazar ds of thes e pr oduct [ s i c] beca us e they cr eat e dus tevery t i m e you us e them. So you c an’ ta voi d the dus t . But t hat also d o esn ’ttell y o u h o w to av o id d u st. Itd o esn ’ttell y o u h o w to n o t m ak e d u st. ” H o w ev er, hi s l at ert es t i m ony w as thathe coul d notco m e u p w i t h an al t ernat e w arni ng, beca us e no
w a rn in g w o u ld b e s u ff

ic ie n t d u e to th e in h e re n t d a n g e r o f t h e p ro d u c t. ¶10. N i x t es t i f

i ed at tr i al and s t at ed that he had r ead the w arni ng pr ovi ded. H e not ed that

### Zieg ler also testifiedthat dust creationis inh erent inthe u se of th e pro du ct: “Well, 7 

### it ’s always dusty. You have a powder ed mate ri al
. You’r e inte nti onal ly, bec aus e this is how you haveto us e i t, cutting or br eaking a pa per s ac k ope n and dum

ping them at eria l out in t

he atmos pher e or

e nvironme nt into a

hopper . So t o usetheproduc t a s i t wa s m anuf ac tured and sol d, you arecr eating dust . Eve ry tim e you dump a bag, you get dus t. ” Heal so s tate d that theproduc ts “c re at e dus t e ver y timeyou usethe m. So you can’t avoi d thedust .”The r ec ord inde ed indic at es that t

he product s we reinherently dust y to someexte nt. Even Uni on Car bide adm it s that

it stroveto c re at e a

“dus t- fr ee ” product , and was unsuc ce ss ful, indi cating that some amo unt of dust w ou ld alw ays b e associatedwiththese p roducts. 7 i tw as “i m po ssi ble” t o av oid cr eat i ng du st , and that he di d n ot use a r espi rat or or dustm ask 7
w hi l e us i ng the pr oductbeca us e “nobody t ol d m e. ” R egar di ng r es pi r at orus e and w hether he w as appri sed of the can cer r i sk of Su per V i sbest os, he tes t i fi ed as fol l ow s: Q : N ow , had thatbag cont ai ned a w arni ng t el l i ng you t o us e a r es pi r at or , w hat c h a n g e s, if a n y , w o u ld y o u h a v e m a d e in th e w a y y o u h a n d led th a t p ro d u c t? A: I wo u l d h a v e h a d th e m o u tth e r e i f I ’ d o f h a d t o b o u g h tt h e m ou to f my p o c k e t. Q : W o u ld y o u h av e w o rn a resp ir ator? A : I w oul d have. Q : E v e n if it did n ’t m e n tio n th e n e e d fo r a re sp ira to r, i f ith a d told y o u th a t it w oul d caus e ca ncerorcould caus e ca ncer , w hatchange s , i f any, w oul d you h a v e m a d e in th e w a y y o u h a n d led th a t p ro d u c t? A : I w oul d have pr obabl y t r i ed t o gotoutof thatjob w here I w oul dn’ thave h a d to h a n d le it. Q : O kay. A : K n o w in g – b a se d o n w h a t I k n o w a b o u t c a n c e r a n d s e e in g m y m o th e r d ie w ith ca n ce r an d m y sec o n d w if e d ied w ith can ce r an d I’m d y ing w ith ca n ce r. Q : H av e y o u ev er b ee n a sm o k er? A: No
. No
. Di d n ’ tl i k e c i g a r e t t e s . S c a r e d o f th e m.

### 8

O n cross- exam i nati on , he tes t i fi ed as fol l ow s: Q : O kay. N ow , do you r emem bers eei ng any w arni ngs on the packa ges pr i or t o 1985? A : O h, yeah
. Y es. Q : H ave you t es t i f

i ed on anotherocca s i on thatyou s t art ed s eei ng the w arni ngs on the pac kages i n 1985? A : I pr ob ably di d tes t i fy, I’ d say y es. Q : I s thattrue? A : Y es. Q : O k a y . S o p rio r to 1 9 8 5 y o u h a d n ’t n o tice d th e w a rn in g s, rig h t? A : W el l , yes , they w er e on ther e. Q: Bu ty o u h a d n ’ tn o t i c e d th e m o ro b s e r v e d th e m? A : I p ro b a b ly d id a n d d id n ’t p a y a n y – d id n ’t tak e it t o h e a rt. Q : D id n ’t p a y a n y a tten tio n to it? A : P ro b a b ly n o t. Q : D i d you t ake any pr eca ut i ons once you saw t he w arni ng t hatsai d as bes t os c a n c a u s e s e r i o u s b o d i l y h a r m? A : I don’ tr emem berevert aki ng any pr eca ut i on, no. ¶11. A f

t era l engthy tr i al , the j ury ul t i m at el y r eturned a ver di ctf orU ni on Carbi de on t he d efe cti v e d esig n clai m an d a ve rdict f o r N ix on th e ina d eq u ate w arn ing clai m . T h e jury
aw ar ded N i x $1, 000, 000 i n da m ages . T he s peci al ve r di ctf or m pr ovi ded thati f dam ages
w er e aw ar ded, “100% r epr es ent s the t ot al causes of M r . N i x’ s i nj ury. Pl eas e as s es s the appr opr i at e per cent age of f aul tt o the part i es and ent i t i es i denti fi ed bel ow , f ol l ow i ng t he

### Th e juryinstru ction s stated th at 8



### . . . Alt er

native ly, if

af te r c onsi dering a llof the e vide nce , you f ind t hat at le as t oneof the proxim at e c aus es of the dama ges of the plaintif f, inc luding em oti onaldis tres s damag es, was th e plaintiff’s exp osure to p roducts other t han thos e m anuf

ac tured or

sol d by thedef

endant, the n youmus t a ll ocatean appropri at e pe rc ent ageof fa ult to thosecom

pani es and c aus es on your ve rdi ct form if y oudo actuallyfindin fav or o f the p laintiff an d aw ard d amages. Withrespect to dama g es , ho wev er, yo u are in structedthat th e first ques ti on you mus t de ci de is whether thedef endant i s l ega lly li abl e t o the plaintif f unde r the instruc ti ons gi ven t o you by the Court. Only i f you det er mine that thedef endant is l ega lly l ia

blet o the plaintif

f, shoul d you eve n con sider th e qu estionof mo netarydamag es. . . . Sh ou ld y oudetermin e that th e plaintiff is entitledto recov er damag es, yo u mu st nex t determin e the amo unt of d amages to be aw arded
. . . . .

. . . Further

more, if you det er mine that thedef

endant i s l egally li abl e t o the plaintif f and dete rm inean amount of dama ges to be awarde d to t he pl ainti ff

, you ar e ne xt require d by law to de te rminetheperce nta ge of f ault t hat is to be as se s s e d t o e a c h i ndi vi du a lo r e nti ty that

y oud e t e rm i net o beat

f ault f or the plaintif f’ s injurie s and indi catethat percent ageof f ault on t he f orm of the verdic t t hat wil l begive n to you separately. Thi s i s be ca useif you award dam age s t o theplaintiff at a ll , you arenot l im it ed t o theparti es bef orethe Co urt inyo ur d et ermi n at ionof p ercentag es of fau lt. Yo u mayalso assess a percentage o f fault to perso ns o r entities who are no t here inthe C ourt. You ar e instruc te d that, if you find from a p reponderanceof the evi denc e that

theplainti ff

’s exposur e to produc ts not m anuf ac tured by Uni on Car bide , plaintif

f’ s em ploye rs , . . . , themud companie s, the oilcom pani es , or anyothe r thir d p arty w a s a l s o gui l ty o f f ault wh i c h p r ox i m at e ly c ontribut ed to t he pl ainti ff

’s injuries , then you s hal l and mus t de te rm inetheam ount or perc e nt a geof

f ault attribut abl e t o s uc h o the r pe r s on s or

e nti t i e s wh i ch comb inedto cause the plaintiff’s injuries. If youdecide to awardd amag es, your t ota l perc ent age s of

fa ult as si gned to eacho f theentitie s you f ind t o be l i abl e mus t

a dd up t o a t ot a lof 10 0%
. 9 in s tru c tio n s p ro v id e d a n d b a s e d u p o n th e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d to y o u .” 8 T he s peci al v erdi ctf

or m l i s t ed more than f

or ty ent i t i es , and nextt o eac h w as a bl ank l i ne
w i th a per cent i l e s ym bol
. A tthe bot t om , i thad a l i ne ent i t l ed “Tot al ” and s t at ed thatthe t ot al

### It

appears from

there cord that t

his spe ci alverdic t f

orm that Ni x bel ie ved c aus ed 9 

### conf usi on was subm itte d byN ix. H oweve r, Union Carbi de indic at ed that thi s f orm was ord ered b y th e special m as te r an dw as a comp romise, b ut h as “beenused[bythe co urt] in eve ry c as e. ” 10 “Shoul d E qual 100. ” The j ury al l ocat ed tw enty- f i ve- per centf

aul tt o U ni on C arbi de, and
a llo c a te d v a ri o u s p e rc e n ta g e s o f f a u lt to o th e r e n titie s . ¶12. A f

t erthe j ury r eturned the det ai l ed verdi ctform , co un sel for N i x s t at ed that they bel i eved thatther e may have bee n conf us i on w i th the j ury ver di ctform . N i x r eques t ed that 9 the judge “ask t he jury if they i ntended t o aw ard the $ 1, 00 0, 00 0 to the p l ai nti ff as agai nst U ni on C arbi de ordi d they i nt end f orthe $1, 000, 000 t o be the t ot al amount agai ns tal l of t he ent i t i es on t he ver di ctf

or m . ” U ni on C arbi de obj ect ed. T he cour tover rul ed the obj ect i on. N ix th e n c re a ted a “ q u e stio n n a ire ” to su b m it t o th e ju ry , w h ich s ta te d “ D id y o u in ten d to
aw ar d $1, 000, 000 t o the pl ai nt i f f as agai ns tU ni on C arbi de onl y ordi d you i nt end f ort he $1, 000, 000 t o be the t ot al as t o al l ent i t i es on the ver di ctf or m ?” The cou rt

then demanded that N ix ad d th e follow ing t o the “ q u esti o n n aire”: “the w ay the v erd ictstan d s n o w , the C o u rt under s t ands the ver di ctnow i s thatyou a w ar ded – the w ay the ver di cti s – the w ay i ts t ands
now , the C our tw i l l acc eptthatyou onl y aw ar ded $250, 000 t o M r . N i x agai ns tU ni on C arbi de. ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T he ul t i m at e “que s t i onnai r e” thatw entt o the j ury s t at ed: D i d you i nt end t o aw ar d $1 m i l l i on dol l ar s t o t he P l ai nti ff as agai ns tU ni on C a rb id e o n ly , o r d id y o u inte n d fo r th e $ 1 m ill io n to b e the tota l as to a ll ent i t i es on t he ver di ctf

or m ? The w ay i ts t ands now the C our tunder s t ands that you o n ly a w a rd e d $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 a s to U n io n C a rb id e ? W h a t ev e r y o u r a n sw e r is 9 of you m us tagr ee. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶1 3
. T h e jury resp o n d ed w ith a n o te that stat ed “W e inten d ed to aw ard $ 1 m il li o n d o ll ars

### 11

t o the Pl ai nt i f

f t o be the t ot al as t o al l ent i t i es on the ver di ctf or m . W e aw ar ded $250, 000 as t o U ni on C arbi de. A l l j ur or s agr ee. ” W hen the j ur or s r eturned the not e, the f ol l ow i ng col l oquy occurr ed: T H E C O U R T : M s . Si m s , s om e of the l aw yer s w ant ed t o know , you know , how yo u reached yo ur verdi ctand w hat your i ntentw as, so i f you’l l j ustt el l us. T hat’ s al l yo u h ave to do i s t el l us w hat i ti s. JU R O R S IM S : W e ll – T H E C O U R T : Justt el l us w hat your res po nse t o the que st i on I s ent i n is
. JU R O R S IM S : A ll rig h t. W e in ten d e d to a w a rd th e $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 a c c o rd in g to the per cent ages thatw er e on the form w hi ch w as $250, 000 as t o U ni on C arbi de. T H E C O U R T : A s to M r. N ix? T h at’s w h at yo u i n tend ed t o aw ard M r. N ix? Is thatw hatyou i nt ended M r . N i x t o r ece i ve f r om U ni on C arbi de, $250, 000? JU R O R S IM S : Y es, si r. T h e c o u rtth e n im m e d iat ely s u b m itted th e issu e o f pu n it ive d am ag es to the ju ry. T h e jury
a w a rd e d N ix $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 in p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . ¶1 4
. O n O ctob er 28 , 20 1 1 , N ix fi led a M o ti o n for A w ard o f C o sts, E x p en ses, A tt o rne y ’s Fees , and O therR el i ef

. N i x r eques t ed cos t s of courti n t he amountof $1, 239. 85, expens es in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 8 4 ,0 6 7 .0 8 , an d $ 6 0 1 ,0 8 0 .8 7 in a tto rn e y a n d p a ra leg a l fe e s. A ttac h e d to th e m o tio n w e re e x h ib its d e tailin g th e e x p e n se s a n d fe e s. T h e c o u rt su m m a rily a w a rd e d N ix $466, 965 i n at t orney’s f ees and cos t s cons i s t i ng of the or i gi nal f

i l i ng f ee of $121 and the pl ai nt i f f’ s por t i on of the s peci al m as t erf ees i n the amountof

$4, 451. 44. I tgave no expl anat i on f

orthe amountaw ar ded, nordi d i tmake a ny f i ndi ngs of

f acton the s ame, ei ther in th e w ritten ju d g m e n t o r a t th e h e a rin g o n a tto rn e y ’s f e e s. T h e c o u rt a lso a w a rd e d p o st-

### 12

j udgm enti nt er es tatt he r at e of ei ghtper centperannum, t o acc rue f r om O ct ober12, 2011, th e d a y a ft e r t h e ju ry v e rd ic t. ¶15. U ni on C arbi de f

i l ed a M ot i on f

or J udgm ent N otw i ths t andi ng the V er di ct ( JN O V ) , or in th e A ltern a tiv e , fo r R e m itt itu r. T h e c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , a n d U n io n C a rb id e filed its
no t i ce of app eal
. O n ap peal, U nion C arbi de rai ses s everal i ssues: 1 ) W h ethe r N ix fa il ed to p rov e a p ri m a fa cie p rod u ct l iabili ty fail u re-to-w arn c laim b e c a u se : a) U ni on C arbi de di d notow e N i x a duty t o w arn, as i tpr ovi ded w arni ngs t o compani es l i ke N i x’ s empl oyer , w ho w as a s ophi s t i cat ed u ser; b) U ni on C arbi de di d notbr eac h any duty t o N i x beca us e i t s w arni ng compl i ed w i th O SH A r egul at i ons and bec aus e N i x f ai l ed t o pr ove that the w arni ng’ s pr es ent at i on orpr om i nence w er e i nadequa t e; c) N i x f ai l ed t o adduce com pet entexpertt es t i m ony es t abl i s hi ng a f a i l u r e - t o - wa r n c l a i m; d ) N ix fail ed to p rov e a d eficien t w arn ing p rox im ately c au sed h is i n jury becau se he did no trel y o n the w arni ng as i tw as; 2) W hetherpuni t i ve damages w er e i m pr operbeca us e: a) N i x f ai l ed t o pr ove by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatU ni on C arbi de ac t ed w i th actual m al i ce orgr os s negl i gence thatexhi bi t ed a w i l l f ul , w ant on, orr eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe s af

ety of others, or comm i t t ed ac tual f

r aud; b ) N ix re lea se d U n io n C a rb id e fro m liab ility fo r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s in a p rio r se ttl e m e n t; c) the tr i al courti m pr oper l y i nf l uence d the j ury’ s aw ar d of puni t i ve dam ages; 3) W hetherthe aw ar d of att orney f

ees and cos t s i s i m pr operbeca us e: a) i ti s uns uppor t ed by a va l i d puni t i ve damages aw ar d;

### 13 b) i ti s uns ubs t ant i at ed by any f i ndi ngs of

f act ; and 4 ) W h ethe r th e p o st-

jud g m en t i n terest r ate is i m p rop er.

A N A L Y S IS 1. Standard of

R eview ¶16. T hi s C our t r evi ew s a deni al of a m ot i on f or JN O V us i ng the s ame s t andar d as di d t he tr ia l c o u rt . U

n i ted S erv i ces A uto. A s s ’n v. L is anby , 4 7 S o . 3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 6 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). T h is C o u rt v ie w s th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . I d. T he C our tg i ve s the n on movi ng “ pa r ty the b e ne f i to f a l l f a vo r a bl e i nf

e r e nc e s tha tmay be
r eas onabl y dr aw n f

r om the evi dence
. ” 3M

C o. v. Johnson , 895 So. 2d 151, 160 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Munf

or d, I nc . v. Fle m ing , 5 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )). T h is C o u rt w ill
r e v e r s e th e d e n i a l o f

a JNOV onl

y i f t he f act s ar e s o overw hel m i ngl y i n f avorof the movi ng party thatr eas onabl e j ur or s coul d nothave arri ved ata ver di ctagai ns tthe movi ng party. Johnson , 8 95 S o. 2 d at160. T her ef or e, i f s ubs t ant i al evi dence , i n otherw or ds , “evi dence of s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthatr eas onabl e and f ai rm i nded j ur or s i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al jud g m en t m igh t hav e re ac h ed d if feren t con clus ion s, ” e x ist s su p p o rt ing the v erd ict , this C o u rt
m u s t a ff ir m th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a JN O V
. I d. I n s um m ary, a mot i on f orJN O V does not t es tthe w ei ghtof

the evi dence , butthe l egal s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence su pp ort i ng t he
v e rd ic t. I

d. ¶ 1 7
. T h e sta n d a rd o f re v ie w r e g a rd in g w h e th e r a n a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f e e s is p ro p e r is
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Tupelo R edev elopm ent A gency v. G r ay Cor

p. , I nc. , 972 So. 2d 495, 51 8 (M i ss. 20 07 ). T his C ou rtal so revi ew s i ssues r egardi ng po st -j ud gm ent i nter estforabu se
o f d is c re tio n . See Houc k v. O us te r hout
. 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ).

### 14

2 . W h e th e r N ix fa iledto p ro v e h is p ro d u c t lia b ility f a ilu re -to -w a rn c la im ¶1 8
. A m a n u fa c tu re r is liab le un d er a fail u re-to-w arn th eo ry if th e p rod u ct “ fa iled to
c o n tain a d e q u a te w a rn in g s,” th e in a d e q u a te w a rn in g s “ re n d e re d th e p ro d u c t u n re a so n a b ly danger ous t o t he us erorcons um er , ” and the i nadequa t e w arni ng “pr ox i m at el y caus ed the d am ag es fo r w h ich re co v ery is sou g h t. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 3 (a)(i )-( ii i) (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ); Johnson , 895 So. 2d at166. F ur therm or e, t he pl ai nt i f f m us tpr ove by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe manuf actur er“knew ori n l i ghtof r eas onabl y avai l abl e know l edge
s houl d have know n abo ut the dange rthatcaus ed the damage f orw hi ch r ecove ry i s s ought and that the o rdi nary user or consum er w o u ld n o t r eal i ze i t s dang erous con dit i on . ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 3 (c )(i) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ); Johnson , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 6 . F u rt h e rm o re , [a]n a d e q u a te p ro d u c t w a rn in g . . . is o n e th a t a r e a so n a b ly p ru d e n t pe rso n in the s ame ors i m i l arci r cumst ance s w oul d have pr ovi ded w i th r es pectt o the d an g er a n d that co m m u n icates su ffi cien t info rm ati o n on the d an g ers a n d safe u se o f th e p rod u ct, takin g into a cc o u n t th e c h ara cterist ics o f, an d the o rdin ary k n o w led g e c o m m o n to a n o rd in a ry c o n su m e r w h o p u rc h a se s th e p ro d u c t. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 3 (c )(ii); Johnson , 895 So. 2d at166.
a. So ph ist i cated U

ser/ L earnedInt erm ediary D ef ense ¶19. U ni on Carbi de cl ai m s thati tow ed N i x no duty t o w arn aboutthe pot ent i al haza r ds of
a sb e sto s b e c a u se it rea so n a b ly re lied o n p u rc h a se rs “ lik e P lain tiff’s e m p lo y e r W e llT e c h ” to p ro v id e a p p ro p ri a te w a rn in g s a n d in s tru c tio n s to e n d u s e rs s u c h a s N ix
. ¶2 0
. “M issi ssipp i rec o g n izes b o th a st atuto ry an d th e c o m m o n -la w ‘sop h ist icated -use r’ def ens e. ” Mis s . V

al ley Sili ca Co. , I

nc. v. E as t

m an , 9 2 S o . 3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 1 (M iss. 2 0 1 2 ). “[C ] o u rts a n d li ti g an ts often u se th e term s ‘l ea rne d interm ed iary’ an d ‘sop h ist icated u ser’ i nt er change abl y. ” I

d. T he “s ophi s t i cat ed- us er ” t erm i nol ogy i s more a ppr opr i at e w her e the

### 15

i nj ur ed ul t i m at e us eris aw are of the pr oduct ’ s haza r ds , w hi l e the “l earned i nt erm edi ary” ter m in o lo g y m o re a p tly d e sc rib e s th e situ a tio n in w h ich th e in ter m e d iate p u rc h a se r is k n o w le d g e a b le , b u t t h e in ju re d u ltim a te u s e r is ig n o ra n t o f t h e p ro d u c t’ s h a z a rd s . I d. “[ T ] he cont extand f

act s of a pa r t i cul arc as e w i l l di ct at e w hi ch l abel i s appr opr i at e, r egar dl es s of t he l abel actual l y us ed. ” I

d. i
. C om m on L aw ¶ 2 1
. T h e c o m m o n law d e fe n se p ro v id e s th a t w h e n a m a n u fa c tu re r p ro v id e s in fo rm a tio n to a thi r d party upon w hom i tcan re a so n a b ly r el y t o comm uni cat e thati nf or m at i on t o t he
u lti m a te e n d u se r o r th o se p a rties w h o w ill b e e x p o se d to th e p ro d u c t’s h a z a rd o u s e ffe c ts, its d u ty to w a rn m a y b e d is c h a rg e d
. I d. at672. U ni on C arbi de poi nt s t o m any comm uni cat i ons i ta nd M on t e l l o ha d w i th va r i ou s c ompa ni e s r e ga r di ng “ s a f e ” a s be s t os p r a c t i ces , t hat b re a th in g a sb e sto s s h o u ld b e a v o id e d , an d o th e r sim ila r to p ics . H o w e v e r, itp o in ts to abs ol ut el y nothi ng thats how s thati torM ont el l o i nf or m ed W el l Tech , N ix’s ac tual em p loy er,
oranyone i n W el l T ech’ s di r ectdi s tr i but i on chai n, of thes e haz ar ds
. T o us e the comm on l aw
so p h istica te d -u se r d e fe n se , a m a n u fa c tu re r m u st p ro v id e so m e e v id e n c e th a t ita c tu a lly p ro v id e d th e “ le a rn e d in te rm e d ia ry ” in q u e s tio n w ith a n y in fo rm a tio n o r w a rn in g . See Sw an
v. I . P. , I nc. , 6 1 3 S o . 2 d 8 4 6 , 8 5 1 -5 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ); C urtis v. M & S P etr oleum , I nc. , 174 F. 3d 661, 675- 76 (5th C i r . 1999) ( appl yi ng M i s s i s s i ppi l aw , and contr as t i ng the ca s e w i th Sw an

“ w h e re it w a s u n c le a r w h e th e r th e m a n u fa c tu re r e v e r p ro v id e d th e in ter m e d iar y w ith i nf or m at i on on the pr oduct ” bec aus e, i n the ca s e athand, the manuf actur erdi r ect l y pr ovi ded the empl oyer“w i th ext ens i ve i nf or m at i on on the danger s ” of the pr oduct )
. U ni on C arbi de poi nt s thi s C our tt o no evi dence thati ts peci f i cal l y pr ovi ded W el l T ech oranyone i n i t s di r ect

### 16

chai n of di s tr i but i on w i th i nf

or m at i on r egar di ng the haz ar ds of as bes t os . I tcert ai nl y cannot then cl ai m thati tr eas onabl y r el i ed on W el l T ech t o w arn N i x, w hen i ti s uncl earfr om t he
re c o rd w h ethe r i t eve n p rov ided W ell T ec h w ith a w arn ing
. T h u s, the tri al co u rtp rop erly deni ed the mot i on f

orJN O V on t hi s i s s ue. i i
. St atut ory L aw ¶ 2 2
. T h e sta tu to ry so p h istica ted -u se r d e fe n se p ro v id e s th a t th e m a n u fa c tu re r is n o t li a b le “i f t he dangerposed by t he pr oducti s know n . . . t o t he use rorcons um erof the pr oduct , or
s houl d have been know n . . . t o t he use ror cons um erof the pr oduct , t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe charact eri st i cs of, a n d the ordi nary kn ow l edg e com m on t o, the p ers on s w ho ordi nari l y u se
o r c o n su m e th e p ro d u c t.” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 3 (e ) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ); E as t m an , 92 So. 3d at972- 73. Sect i on 11- 1- 63 does notdef i ne t he w or d “use r . ” Thi s C our thas notdet erm i ned
w h e th e r, in a c a se su c h a s th is , th e “ u se r” is th e e m p lo y e r w h o “ u se d ” th e p ro d u c t in its b u s in e s s , o r t h e e m p lo y e e w h o u ltim a te ly “ u s e d ” th e p ro d u c t o n th e jo b
. E as t m an , 92 So. 3 d a t 9 7 3
. ¶23. U ni on C arbi de ar gues t hatt he or di nary “cons um er s ” of S uperV i s bes t os w er e l ar ge oi l compani es and mud com pani es , and the or di nary “us er s ” of the pr oductw er e dri l l i ng contr act or s l i ke W el l T ech. N i x count er s thatU ni on C arbi de pr es ented no evi dence that W el l T ech w as aw ar e thatSuperV i s bes t os caus ed ca ncerorm esothel i om a. M or eover , he p o ints to ev iden ce sho w ing th at U n ion C arb ide d o w n p laye d th e d an g ers o f asb e sto s to its
cons um er s , and thati tdoes notappea rt o have e verr ecomm ended a cr os s - the- boar d r es pi r at or

### It

did rec omm end r es pirat or us e under certain s pec if

ic sc ena ri os, but not

as a ge neral 10 

### practice whenhan dlin g its asb estos p roducts. 17 us e. 10 ¶24
. T his C ou rt do es no t need t o determ i ne ho w t o defi ne “user” i n this case. R egardl ess
o f h o w it i s d e fin e d , U n io n C a rb id e p re s e n ted e v id e n c e th a t itin fo rm e d so m e o f its p u rc h a se rs o f so m e o f th e d a n g e rs o f a sb e sto s (a lth o u g h it p re se n ted n o th in g sp e c ific to W el l T ech) , and N i x pr es ent ed evi dence s how i ng thatU ni on C arbi de of t en dow npl ayed the d a n g e rs o f a sb e sto s to it s p u rc h a se rs. G iv e n the co n flictin g ev id e n c e , re a so n a b le ju ro rs c o u ld di f f erregar ding w hetherthe i nf or m at i on U ni on C arbi de gave t o i t s cus t om er s , as a w hol e, adequa t el y w arned of

t he danger s of

as bes t os . T hus , the tr i al court ’ s deni al of the mot i on f

or JN O V o n this i ssu e w as n o t error. b. U ni on C ar bi de di d notbr each any dut y to Ni x. ¶2 5. U ni on C arbi de a r gu e s tha t , e ve n i f i th a d a d uty t o w ar n N i x of t he dange r s of
a s b e s to s , it d id n o t b re a c h th a t d u ty . i. O S H A S tand ard ¶2 6. U ni on C arbi de ar gu e s tha t , be c a us e i tc ompl i e d wi th the O SH A s t a nd a r d, a nd the O SH A s t andar d caut i oned agai ns tt he haza r d ati s s ue, i t s w arni ng “w as adequa t e as a mat t er of l aw . ” ¶ 2 7
. F i r s t , wh i l e i ti s c l e a rth a tUn i o n Ca rb i d e ’ s wa rn i n g tr a c k e d th e l a n g u a g e o f th e OS HA
s t andar d, the O SH A s t andar d a l s o r equi r es thatthe w arni ng “be pr i nt ed i n l ett er s of s uf f i ci ent
s iz e a n d c o n tr a s t a s to b e re a d ily v is ib le a n d le g ib le ,” a s u b je c tiv e s ta n d a rd
. 2 9 C .F .R . § 1910. 1001 (1972 ). B eca us e a port i on of the O SH A s t andar d i s s ubj ect i ve, U ni on C arbi de

### 18

cannotar gue thati tw as i n per f ectcom pl i ance w i th t he st andar d m er el y becaus e the w or ds i tus ed w er e thos e mandat ed by the s t andar d. ¶2 8. Second, compl i ance w i t h O SH A s t andar ds m ay be us ed as evi dence of t he
re a s o n a b le n e s s o f U n io n C a rb id e ’ s a c ti o n s , b u t it is n o t d is p o s itiv e . See A ccu- Fab & Constr. , I

nc. v. L adner , 7 7 8 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 , 7 7 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ) (O S H A re g u latio n s a d m iss ib le to
s h o w re a s o n a b le n e s s ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Ma c kT ru c ks, In c . v. T

a c k e tt , 841 So. 2 d 1 1 0 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); s ee al s o Sum r al

l v. Mis s . P ow erCo. , 6 93 S o. 2d 35 9, 36 6-67 (M i ss. 19 97) ( O SH A r egul at i ons notadmi s s i bl e t o s how negl i gence beca us e they ar e notgi ven
co m p u lsory forc e b y the M issi ssipp i L eg isl ature ). ¶2 9
. T h e O S H A reg u latio n s w e re p re se n ted to th e ju ry , alon g w ith U n ion C arb ide’s
w arni ng. T he jur y cons i der ed the r egul at i ons as evi dence of the ade quacy of

U ni on C arbi de’ s w arni ng and r ej ect ed U ni on Carbi de’ s theory. G i ven the i nt ernal U ni on C arbi de d o c u m e n ts a c k n o w led g in g th a t th e O S H A w a rn in g w a s in a d e q u a te, a re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld
cert ai nl y r eac h t he conc l us i on thatcompl i ance w i t h O S H A di d notaut om at i cal l y r ender U n io n C a rb id e ’s w a rn in g a d e q u a te. M o re o v e r, th e ju ry w a s a b le to v iew th e w a rn in g s itse lf t o det erm i ne w hetherU ni on C arbi de’ s w arni ngs w er e “pr i nt ed i n l ett er s of s uf f i ci ents i ze a nd
c o n tra st a s to b e re a d ily v isib le a n d le g ib le,” a s re q u ire d b y O S H A , an d it i s e n tirely p lau sib le that the jury d eci ded that the w arni ng s w ere non com pli ant i n this subject i ve regard. T hu s, the tr i al courtpr oper l y deni ed U ni on C arbi de’ s m ot i on f orJN O V on thi s i s s ue. i i
. N i x f ai l ed t o pr ove the w arni ng w as i nadequa t e due t o pr es ent at i on orpr om i nence . ¶30. U ni on C arbi de al s o ar gues N i x f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a f

ai l ur e- t o- w arn cl ai m by ar gui ng thatthe w arni ng l abel w as i nadequa t e due t o pr om i nence . I n c as es w her e a w arni ng i s of t he

### 19

n a tu re “ th a t itc a u se s a p o ten tial p lain tiff to fa il t o re a d th e w a rn in g w h ich c a u se s h is i nj ur i es , ” the w arni ngs are t hus “pot ent i al l y i nadequa t e bec aus e they ar e pr es ent ed i n a
m annerthatpr event s the cus t om erf r om r eadi ng them and bei ng w arned. ” P al m erv. V ol ks w agen of

Am er i ca, I

nc. , 904 So. 2d 1077, 1085 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng E . R . Squibb & Sons, I nc. v. Cox , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d 9 6 3 , 9 7 0 (A la. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶ 3 1
. U n io n C a rb id e a lso c laim s th a t Z ieg ler ’s e x p e rt tes tim o n y w a s th e o n ly e v id e n c e to
su p p o rt th is in a d e q u a te w a rn in g c laim , an d h is o p in io n is “ d e v o id o f a n y s u b sta n c e .” T h is cont ent i on has no m er i t , as di s cus s ed i n I s s ue i i i
. “ExpertT es t i m ony. ” ¶32. Fur therm or e, U ni on C arbi de cl ai m s t hat N i x cann ot cl ai m thatthe w arni ng w as i nadequa t e due t o pr es ent at i on or pr om i nence becaus e he actual l y s aw and r ead the w arni ng. N i x di d a dm i tthathe s aw a nd r ead the w arni ng. H ow ever , the j ury di d notne ces s ar i l y f i nd t he w arni ng i nadequa t e due t o pr es ent at i on orpr om i nence . M any otherpot ent i al inad eq u ac ies o f th e w arn ing w ere p rese n ted, su ch as th e w arn ing fail ing to u se th e w o rd “ca ncer ” and f

ai l i ng t o di r ectus er s t o us e a r es pi r at or . Fur ther , much evi dence w as adduce d th a t th e w a rn in g to “ a v o id c re a tin g d u st” w a s m e a n in g les s, b e c a u se it w a s im p o ss ib le to avoi d cr eat i ng dus tw hen usi ng t he pr oduct
. T he j ury coul d have de t erm i ned thatany one of thes e i s s ues r ender ed the w arni ng i nadequa t e, notnece s s ar i l y i t s pr es ent at i on or pr om i nence . T hus , any f ai l ur e t o pr ove the s am e is notf at al t o N i x’ s cl ai m , and the tr i al
c o u rt p ro p e rl y d e n ie d U n io n C a rb id e ’s m o tio n fo r J N O V o n th is is s u e . i i i
. E xpertT es t i m ony ¶33. U ni on C arbi de ar gues that N i x’ s f ai l ur e- t o- w arn cl ai m cannot s t and beca us e “i tw as
w h o ll y u n su p p o rt ed b y co m p eten t, ad m issi b le ex p ert pro o f. ” “ T h e a d m issi o n o f ex p ert

### Daubert v . Merrel l Dow Phar

ms. , I nc. , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 11 

### 2d 469 (1993)
. Kumho Ti

re Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 12 

### (1999)
. 20 t es t i m ony l i es w i thi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al court . ” Matte rof the Exte ns i on o

f the B o u n da rie s o

f th e City o

f Tu p e lo , 94 So. 3d 256, 267 ( M i s s . 2012)
. M i ssi ssi ppi R ul e of E vi dence 702 pr ovi des that I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , o rothers peci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof factt o u n d erstan d the evi den ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expe r tby know l edge, ski l l , exper i ence , t r ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y t her et o i n t he f

or m of an opi ni on or otherw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci ent f act s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) t he w i tnes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o t he f act s of the ca s e. M
. R
. E
. 702. T hus , t he tr i al courtm us tdet erm i ne thatthe expe r tt es t i m ony i s both r el evant
a n d re lia b le
. Miss. T

ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). T h is C our thas adopt ed the D au bert st andar d t o det erm i ne t he r el i abi l i ty of e xpertt es t i m ony, as 11
m odi f i ed by Ku m h o T

ire . McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 -3 8 . B e c a u se th e trial c o u rt is 12
ves t ed w i th gat ekee pi ng r es pons i bi l i ty, i tmustmake a pr el i m i nary a s s es s m entr egar di ng t he
s ci ent i f i c val i di ty of

t he r eas oni ng or m ethodol ogy under l yi ng the expe r tt es t i m ony and the p ro p e r a p p lic a tio n o f t h a t r e a s o n in g o r m e th o d o lo g y to th e fa c ts o f t h e c a s e a t is s u e . I d. at 3 6
. D au bert

s e tf orth a n on e xh a us t i ve , i l l us tr a t i ve l i s to f f a c t or s t o us e t o de t e r mi ne t he
re lia b ility o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y . I d. T he f ocus of a nal yzi ng thes e f

act or s i s on pr i nci pl es and
m e th o d o lo g y , n o t o n th e c o n c lu s io n s . I d. at36 -37. T he fact ors i ncl ude w hetherthe theory ort echni que ca n be and ha s been t es t ed; w hether i thas been s ubj ect ed t o peerr evi ew and publ i cat i on; w hether , i n r es pectt o a part i cul art echni que, ther e i s a hi gh know n or pot ent i al ra t e of err or ; w hether

### Nota bly, it does not a

ppear that Union Carbi de a ct

ual ly cha ll enge d Ziegl er

with any 13 

### peer-rev iewedarticles, testing , or scientific metho ds. See City o f Tu pelo , 94 So. 3d at

271. Da ub ert is no t a strict andexclu sive test. Id. 21 ther e ar e s t andar ds con tr ol l i ng the t echni que’ s oper at i on; and w hetherthe th e o ry o r te c h n iq u e e n jo y s g e n e ra l ac c e p tan c e w ith in a re lev a n t sc ien tific c o m m u n ity
. I d. at 37 . T h e in q u iry is f lexib le, an d d ep en d s o n “the n ature o f th e issu e, th e e x p ert’s part i cul arexpert i s e, an d t he subj ectof the t es t i m ony. ” I

d. A n expertm us texer ci s e “the
s ame l evel of

‘ i nt el l ectual r i gorthatchar act er i zes the pr act i ce of an expe r ti n the r el evant f i el d. ’ ” I d . at37- 38 ( quot i ng Ku m h o T ire , 5 2 6 U .S . a t 1 5 2 ). ¶ 3 4
. U n io n C a rb id e c laim s th a t Z ieg ler ’s te stim o n y re g a rd in g w a rn in g s w as n o t ad m issi b le beca us e i tw as notr el i abl e. I tar gues thathe has neveraut hor ed pee r - r evi ew ed art i cl es on
w arni ngs , has nevert aughtor i ns truct ed on how t o dr af tw arni ngs , has neverconduct ed any t es t i ng on w arni ng s , and has neverappl i ed any s ci ent i f i c met hod t o hi s anal ys i s of U ni on C arbi de’s w arni ng. I tc l ai m s that“ [ e] xpertt es t i m ony i s a pr er equi s i t e t o e s t abl i s hi ng a 13 pr oductl i abi l i ty cl ai m underM i s s i s s i pp i law
. ” T hus , i tcl ai m s , “[ t ] he compl et e l ack of req u isi te ex p ert p roo f i s fat al t o P lai n ti ff’ s claim s as a m att er of law
. ” T h is as se rtio n is i ncorr ectand mi s l eadi ng, as expertt es t i m on y i s no tal w ays r equi r ed t o pr ove a f ai l ur e- t ow a rn c la im
. ¶35. “The i s s ue of

a w arni ng’ s adequa cy i s f actual and us ual l y w i l l be r es ol ved by the tr i er of f act . ” W yeth L ab oratori es, Inc. v. Forten berry , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). “Exper tt es t i m ony m ay be nec es s ary t o ass i s tt he tr i erof f actt o under s t and the evi dence or det erm i ne a f

acti n i s s ue w hen the is s ue pr esent ed requi r es s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal

orother

### 22

s peci al iz ed knowl edge
. ” I d. ( emphase s added)
. Forexam ple , the “t erm s and appl i cat i ons of a w arni ng on [ a pr es cr i pt i on] drug, i n orde rt o have m eani ng, m us tbe expl ai ned t o a j ur y. T hi s i s a s ubj ect‘ s o di s t i nct i vel y r el at ed t o s om e s ci ence , pr of es s i on, bus i nes s oroccupa t i on
as t o be be yond the ken of the ave r age l ayman. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng D i on v. G r aduate Hos p. of the U ni v. of Penn. , 520 A
. 2d 876, 881 ( Pa. Super
. 1987) )
. T hus , “[ w ] her e the ade quacy of the
w arni ng i s notobvi ous t o the or di nary l ayper s on i ti s ne ces s ary t o have e xpertt es t i m ony as t o thi s i s s ue. ” Forten berry , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 6 9 2
. ¶36. T he i s s ues s urr oundi ng the ade quacy of the w arni ng i n ques t i on ar e s i m pl e. I ti s cl ear th a t b re a th in g a sb e sto s m a y c a u se c a n c e r, an d it i s c lea r th a t U n io n C a rb id e ’s w a rn in g d id nots t at e thi s . I nt ernal U ni on C arbi de docum ent s even acknow l edged thatt he w arni ng w as i nadequa t e. I tw as al s o s ugges t ed thatthe w arni ng s houl d ha ve m andat ed r es pi r at orus e, and i tdi d notdo thi s . Speci al i zed know l edge i s notre qui r ed t o under s t and the i s s ues r egar di ng U n ion C arb ide’s w arn ing , as th e o rdin ary layp erso n ca n m ak e the se d eterm ination s h im self. T hus , Z i egl er ’ s t es t i m ony on the w arni ng i s s ues w as notneces s ary f orN i x t o pr ove the i s s ue. T hi s Courtne ed notde ci de w hetherZi egl erw as qual i f i ed as a w arni ngs expert , beca us e eve n th e a b s e n c e o f h is te s tim o n y is n o t f a ta l to N ix ’s fa ilu re -t o -w a rn c la im
. c. The w ar ni ng di d notpr oxi m at el y caus e N

i x’s i nj ur i es becaus e N

i x di d notr el

y on the w ar ni ng. ¶37. U nion C arbi de ar gues that N i x f ai l ed t o pr ove hi s f

ai l ur e- t o- w arn cl ai m beca us e he f ai l ed t o pr ove thathe r el i ed on the gi ven w arni ng. N i x admi t t ed thathe r ead the w arni ng, and di d notdo anythi ng af t erre adi ng i t . T hus , U ni on C arbi de s ur m i s es , N i x “di d notr el y on the w arni ng oractupon i tt o t ake any pre vent at i ve ac t i on, des pi t e bei ng w arned of t he

### 23

pot ent i al f

ors er i ous bodi l y harm f r om br eathi ng as bes t os dus t . ” U ni on C arbi de not es that N ix d id n o t try “ to av o id cre ati n g o r bre athin g asb esto s d u st i n reli an ce o n U n ion C arb ide’s
w arni ngs , ei therthr ough s af e w or k pr act i ces , the us e of pe r s onal pr ot ect i ve equi pm ent , orby any otherm eans . ” ¶38. “[ R ] el i ance o n t he m anu facturer ’s w arni ng m ay, orm ay not , be an el ementof an i nadequa t e w arni ngs cas e. ” P al m er , 904 So. 2d at1083. Such a det erm i nat i on depends on the f act s of the ca s e. “C om pl ai nt s of i nadequa t e w arni ngs may char ge thatcert ai n w arni ngs
w hi ch w er e notgi ven, s houl d have bee n given. ” I d. I n thos e ca s es , r el i ance i s notan
e le m e n t o f a n in a d e q u a te w a rn in g s c a s e . I d. “ [A ] p lain tiff ca n ce rta in ly n o t be ex p e c ted to
s how r el i ance on a w arni ng w hi ch w as notgi ven. ” I d. H ow ever , i f

a pl ai nt i f

f compl ai ns t hat a gi ven w arni ng w as def ect i ve, the pl ai nt i f

f m us thave r ead a nd r el i ed upon t he def ect i ve
w a rn in g to c o m p la in o f i t. I d. ¶3 9
. N ix rea d the w arn ing
. U n ion C arb ide asse rt s that h e d id n o t “re ly” u p o n it , h o w ev er; thus , ur ges U ni on C arbi de, hi s i nadequa t e w arni ng cl ai m m us tbe def eat ed. N i x ar gues t hat the w arni ng gave N i x nothi ng t o “ r el y” upon. W hi l e U ni on Carbi de cl ai m s thatN i x di d not at t em pt t o av oid cr eat i ng du st , am ple evi den ce exis t s, i ncludi ng U nion C arbi de d ocu m ents , t ha ta vo i di ng c r e a t i ng d us twas i mpos s i bl e . U ni on Carbi de c a nn ota bs ol ve i t s el f of an i nadequa t e w arni ng by i ns truct i ng us er s t o do the i m pos s i bl e and t hen chas t i s i ng t hem fornot
a c c o m p lish in g th e im p o ss ib le. F u rth e rm o re , w h ile U n io n C a rb id e a ss e rt s th a t N ix d id nothi ng t o a voi d br eathi ng dus t , thus , i ta r gues , he di d notr el y on the w arni ng, the w arni ng di d noti ns tructN i x t o avoi d br eathi ng dus t , nort o do anyt hing speci f i c t o avoi d br eathi ng dus t . U nion C arbi de ess ent i al l y ar gues thatN i x f ai l ed t o r el y on i ns truct i ons thatdi d not

### 24

exi s t . I n thi s r egar d, N i x i s es s ent i al l y ar gui ng that“ce r t ai n w arni ngs w hi ch w er e not g iv e n ,” n a m e ly th a t as b e sto s c a u se s c a n c e r a n d th a t u se rs s h o u ld u se a re sp ira to r, “s h o u ld have be en gi ven. ” P al m er , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 8 3 . In d e e d , N ix tes tified a t len g th a b o u t h is exper i ence w i th f

ami l y m em ber s w i th canc er , and s t at ed thati f the w arni ng had us ed the
w or d “ca ncer , ” he w oul d have tr i ed t o f i nd a notherj ob. H e al s o t es t i f i ed thati f

the w arni ng h a d in stru c ted h im to u se a re sp ira to r o r a m a sk , h e w o u ld h a v e d o n e so . T h e trial c o u rt d id noterri n denyi ng the mot i on f orJN O V on thi s i s s ue. 3. P uni ti ve D am ages ¶40. U ni on Carbi de ar gues that puni t i ve damages w er e i nappr opr i at e. Puni t i ve damages
m ay be a w ar ded onl y i f a compens at ory damages aw ar d has been made aga i ns ta party. M i s s . Code Ann. § 1 1- 1- 65 ( 1) ( b) & ( c ) ( Rev. 2 00 4)
. To r e c e i ve a n a w a r d of puni t i ve d a m a g e s , a c la im a n t m u s t p ro v e “ b y c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t . . . act ed w ith actual m al i ce, gross negli gen ce w hich evi den ces a w i l l ful , w anton or reckl ess di s r egar d f

orthe s af

ety of other s , orcomm i t t ed ac tual f r aud. ” M i s s. C od e A nn . § 11-1- 6 5 (1)(a) (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). W h il e the p u rpo se o f co m p en sato ry d am ag es is to m ak e the p lai n ti ff
w hol e, “the pr i m ary purpos e of puni t i ve damages i s t o punis h t he w r ongdoerand det er
s i m i l arm i s conducti n t he f utur e by the def

endantand other s . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 1- 6 5 (1 )(e ) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). I n d e ter m in in g th e a m o u n t o f p u n iti v e d a m a g e s, th e fa c t-fin d e r sh a ll
co n side r: the defendant ’ s f

i nanci al condi t i on and netw or th; the natur e and r epr ehens i bi l i ty of

t he def endant ’ s w r ongdoi ng, forexampl e, the i m pactof the def endant ’ s conducton the pl ai nt i f f , or the r el at i ons hi p of the def endantt o the pl ai nt i f f ; the def endant ’ s aw ar enes s of

the amountof

harm bei ng caus ed and the def endant ’ s m ot i vat i on i n caus i ng s uch harm ; the dur at i on of the

### Union Carbi de s tate d that “ [i ] t i s wi dely re cogni ze d t hat them andate d [OSHA] la

bel 14 

### un ders tate s theris k a ss oci at ed with e xposure to as bes tos dus t, and f or thi s re ason, it is propos e d that

theatt a c he d l abe lbes ub s t i t ut e d f or theOS HAl abe lona l lUC C a sbe st os prod uc t s . ” Th e prop os e d l abe l s , wh i c h Uni onCar bi dene ve r

us e d o r s ub m i tt e d t o O SH A, use d stronge r l angua ge than di d theOSHA re gulati on, s pec if ic al ly m entioning that

as bes tos is a “ cance r hazard”and the useof res pirat ors . Other Union Carbi de doc ume nts ma de c le ar that Uni on Car

bideunders tood that as bes tos could c aus e c anc er , de spi tethefa ct that Uni on Car bidedid not

la belVis bes tos or Supe r Vi sbe st os a s a cance r ris k. 25 def endant ’ s m i s conductand w hethert he def endantat t empt ed t o conce al s uch m i s conduct ; and any otherci r cumst ance s s how n by t he evi dence t hatbearon determ i ning t he p roper am ou nt of pu nit i ve d am ages. I d.
a. O SH A Standa rd ¶ 4 1
. U n io n C a rb id e a rg u e s th a t its w a rn in g s w e re a d e q u a te a s a m a tter o f la w b e c a u se it f ol l ow ed the O SH A s t andar d. T hus , i tm ai nt ai ns t hatN i x f ai l ed t o pr ove thatU ni on C arbi de act ed w i th actual m al i ce or gross n eg l i gen ce t hat exhi bit ed a w i l l ful , w anton, or r eckles s di s r egar d f

orthe s af ety of other s orcomm i t t ed ac tual f r aud. W hi l e O SH A r egul at i ons m ay be us ed as evi dence of

r eas onab l enes s , as di s cus s ed supra , the y a re n o t d isp o sitiv e . N ix i ntr oduced e vi dence thatU ni on C arbi de knew thatw hatO SH A r equi r ed w as i nadequa t e and di d nothi ng t o c hange ors uppl ementthei rw arni ng. U ni on Carbi de ca nnotnow t ake r ef uge 14 i n t he O SH A st andar d. M or eover , as di s cus s ed supra , a port i on of the O SH A s t andar d w as
s u b je c tiv e a n d s u b

je c t to in te rp re ta tio n b y th e ju ry . ¶4 2. A ddi t i onal l y, t he j ury w a s s pe c i f i c a l l y i ns t ruct ed t hati tcoul d cons i der U ni on C arbi de’ s O SH A compl i ance i n a j ury i ns truct i on gi ven i n the puni t i ve damages phas e:

I n cons i der i ng w hetherornotthe def endant ’ s conductw as r epr ehens i bl e, you m ay cons i derw hetherthe def endant ’ s conductcomport ed w i th s t at e orfe der al r egul at i ons , s uch as O SH A
. Y ou m ay al s o cons i der

### 26

w h ethe r a d efe n d an t com p li ed w ith o r de p arted from ap p licab le i n d u stry cust om s or s t and ards. I re m in d y o u th a t th e sa le o f a sb e sto s a n d a sb e sto s-c o n tain in g p ro d u c ts w as a law ful a cti v ity in this S tat e an d o thers a t al l r elev an t t im es th at P lai n ti ff N i x w as empl oyed. Y ou ar e nott o puni s h the def endantmer el y be caus e you m a y fin d th a t as b e sto s c a u se d in ju ry , o r b e c a u se tha t de fe n d a n t k n e w o r sh o u ld have know n of

the pot ent i al r i s ks a s s oci at ed w i th thatpr oduct , butonl y t o the ext entthatyou f

i nd by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence , i f atal l , thatthe plai nti ff’s harm s w ere du e t o the defen dan tact i ng w i th actual m al i ce or gross neg l i gen ce t hat evi nces a w i l l ful , w anton, or r eckles s di sr egard for others. T h u s , t h e j u r y wa s a d e q u a t e l y i n s tru c t e d o n h o w t o c o n s i d e rc o mp l i a n c e wi th OS HA
s t andar ds i n m aki ng i t s det erm i nat i on. R eas onabl e j ur or s coul d have c om e t o di f f er ent
co n clus ion s o n this issu e, g iven U n ion C arb ide’s k n o w ledg e o f th e ina d eq u ac y o f O S H A ’s
w arni ng and i t s deci s i on nott o change ors uppl ementi t s w arni ng acc or di ngl y. T hus , t he tr i al
c o u rt d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g th e m o tio n fo r J N O V o n th is is s u e . b. R el ease ¶43. U ni on C arbi de al s o cl ai m s that N i x r el eas ed hi s puni t i ve damages cl ai m s i n the pr i or l i t i gat i on beca us e, i tar gues , puni t i ve damages a r e conduct
- s peci f i c, notdi s eas e- s peci f

i c, and N i x rel eased U nion C arbi de fr om any and al l cl ai m s ari si ng out of hi s exp osure t o asbest os. H ow ever , the r el eas e s peci f i cal l y exce pt ed “c l ai m s f or. . . mesothel i om a . . . notdi agnos ed
a t th e tim e o f th e e x e c u tio n o f th is P a rtial R e lea se .” T h e re lea se d o e s n o t sp e c ifica lly
m ent i on “puni t i ve damages ” i n any capaci ty. ¶ 4 4
. T h is C o u rt a p p lie s c o n tr a c t la w p ri n c ip le s to se ttle m e n t a g re e m e n ts . Ch a n tey Mu sic P ubl ’ g, I nc. v. Malaco, I

nc. , 915 So. 2d 1052, 1056 ( M i s s . 2005). T hus , w hen exa m i ni ng
a se ttl e m e n t a g re e m e n t, th e C o u rt m u st firs t ex a m in e th e fo u r c o rn e rs o f th e d o c u m e n t. R otenber r

y v. Hooker , 864 S o. 2 d 266, 270 ( M i s s . 2003)
. I f the s ett l ementi s cl earand

### 27

u n a m b ig u o u s , th e n its in te n t m u s t b e e ff e c tu a te d
. I

d. O nly i f

the s ett l ementi s vague a nd
a m b ig u o u s, a n d th e in ten t o f th e p a rties th u s u n c lea r, d o e s th e C o u rt e x a m in e e x trin sic
e v id e n c e . I

d. T he set t l em ent ati ssue cl earl y d oes nots peci f i cal l y s t at e thatN i x w as
r el eas i ng f

utur e cl ai m s f

orpuni t i ve damages , and i tcl ear l y exempt s f utur e cl ai m s f

or
u n d ia g n o s e d m e s o th e lio m a , w h ic h in c lu d e s th e c a s e a t h a n d
. ¶4 5
. P u n it ive d am ag es d o n o t exist i n a v ac u u m . A b sen t a v ali d claim for c o m p en sato ry d a m a g e s , th e re c a n b e n o c la im f o r p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 5 (b) & (c ); Roca nov a v. Equi table L i f e Ass ur. Soc ’

y of the U . S. , 6 3 4 N. E
. 2 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 5
- 4 6 ( N. Y. 1 9 9 4 ) (“ [a] d e m a n d o r re q u e st fo r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s is p a ra sitic a n d p o s se ss e s n o v iab ili ty abs enti t s att achmentt o a s ubs t ant i ve caus e of act i on”)
. W i thouts peci f i c l anguage i n t he
r e l e a s e r e l e a s i n g th e p u n i t i v e d a ma g e s c l a i ms th a ta r e t e th e r e d t o th e e x e mp t e d f u tu r e c l a i ms f orm es othel i om a, i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe l anguage of the rel ease cl ear l y and
u n am b igu o u sly relea ses U n io n C arb ide fro m li ab il ity for the se p u n it ive d am ag es. F u ture cl ai m s f orm es othel i om a w er e exc ept ed f r om r el eas e, and thei ratt endant“par as i t i c” puni t i ve d a m a g e s c la im s w e re a ls o e x c e p te d
. c. I m pr operI nf l uence ¶46. U ni on C arbi de ar gu es t hat t he j ud ge i m properl y i nfl uen ced the j ury ver di ct on p u n it ive d am ag es b y im p lying that the c o m p en sato ry d am ag es a w ard w as in su ffi cien t. It cl ai m s thatthe s peci al ver di ctf or m w as s peci f

i c and una m bi guous , as w as the j ury ver di ct itse lf, th u s “ th e re w a s n o p ro p e r b a sis fo r in ter v e n tio n o r co m m e n t b y th e trial ju d g e .” Y e t, the j udge det erm i ned thati tw as nece s s ary t o “cl ar i f y” the j ury’ s ver di ct , and i n doi ng s o,
m ad e su re t o ad d i n to th e jury qu esti o n n aire th e w o rd “o n ly” to m o d if y th e am o u n t th e jury

### 28

aw ar ded, st at i ng t hatt he cour tunder s t ood t hatt he j ury “onl y aw ar ded $250, 000 as t o U ni on C arbi de. ” W hen the j ury agai n cl ear l y i ndi cat ed t he aw ar d, t he j udge cont i nued t o ques t i on the j ury as t o the aw ar d. I m m edi at el y ther eaf t er , the courts ubm i t t ed the ques t i on of puni t i ve damages t o the j ury. ¶4 7. “I ti s a mat t erof comm on kno w l e dg e tha tj ur or s . . . a r e v e ry s us c e pt i bl e t o t he i nf l ue nc e o f the j udge. ” G re e n v. S ta te , 5 3 S o . 4 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 1 0 ). “[J ]ur o rs w a tch c lo se ly h is c o n d u c t, an d g iv e a tten tio n to h is l a n g u a g e , tha t th e y m a y , if p o ss ib le, a sc e rta in h is l eani ng t o one si de ort he ot her , w hi ch, i f know n, oft en l ar gel y i nf l uence s thei rver di ct . ” I d. A j udge “c annotbe t oo c ar ef ul a nd guar ded i n l anguage and conduc ti n the pr es ence of the j ury, t o avoi d pr ej udi ce t o ei therparty. ” I d . Ind ee d , “the w e ig h t an d d ign ity o f th e c o u rt
acc om pani es eac h ques t i on orcomm ent . ” T h o m p so n v. S ta te , 4 68 S o. 2 d 85 2, 85 4 (M i ss. 1 9 8 5 ). B ec au se o f th is, “[i ] t i s the d u ty o f all tr ial jud g es to b e c o m p ara b le t o C ae sar’s w if e

– a b o v e su sp icio n – a n d it i s e n c u m b e n t u p o n th e m to m a in tain a p o sitio n o f im p e c c a b le i m part i al i ty, and w her e the j ury coul d have be en mi s l ed .
. . by the s t at ement s though in a d v e rte n tly m a d e b y a trial ju d g e , this C o u rt” m u st re m a n d th e c a se fo r a n e w trial. T r avel ers I ndem . Co. v. R aw s on , 2 2 2 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 6 -37 (M iss. 1 9 6 9 ). If juro rs w ere expos ed t o i m pr operi nf l uence s thatm i ghthave pr oduced the ver di ct , “the pr es um pt i on of l aw i s agai ns ti t s pur i ty. ” G r een , 53 So. at415. ¶4 8
. A rea d ing o f th e jury instruction s an d the s p ec ial v erd ictform ind icates tha t th ey w ere sp ec if ic an d clea r. Q u esti o n ing the ju ry w as u n n ec essa ry, an d i t w as c ertainly u n n ec essa ry
an d inap p rop ri ate to u se the w o rd “o n ly” in the q u esti o n n aire to d esc ri b e the am o u n t th e jury
a w a r de d N i x. Furthe r , o nc e the j ury un e qu i vo c a l l y a ns w e r e d the q ue s t i on na i r e , i tw asR ul e 1. 5( a) of the R ul es of

Pr of es s i onal C onductand McK ee v. McK

ee , 418 So. 2d 15 764, 767 ( M i s s . 1982) , s etf or th a l i s tof

fa ct or s t hata cour tm us tcons i deri n det erm i ni ng t he r eas onabl enes s of

att orney’ s f

ees . Fur ther , the court“sha l l m ake the aw ar d bas ed on the i nf or m at i on al rea dy bef

or e i tand the court ’ s ow n opi ni on bas ed on expe r i ence and



### 29 li k ew ise un n ec essa ry to co n ti n u e q u esti o n ing th em on i t. E v en i f i n ad v erten t, th e ju d g e’s
comm ent s appea rt o i ndi cat e to t he j ury thatthei rcompensa t ory damages aw ar d w as insu ffi ci ent. G i ven t he ti m i ng – thatpu nit i ve d am ages w ere s ub m i t t ed to the jury im m ed iat ely a ft er this co ll o q u y – w e a re u n ab le t o say w ith c o n fid e n c e th at th e jud g e’s
r emar ks di d notaf

f ectthe puni t i ve damages a w ar d. Forthi s r eas on, thi s C our tr ever s es the puni t i ve damages aw ar d and r emands the ca s e f ora new tr i al on puni t i ve damages onl y. 4. A ttor ney’s Fees ¶49. U ni on C arbi de ar gues that the aw ar d of att orney’ s f ees and cos t s s houl d be s etas i de b e c a u se i t is u n su p p o rt ed by a va li d pu n it ive d am ag es aw ard an d be ca u se itis
uns ubs t ant i at ed by a ny f i ndi ngs of

f act . A n a w ar d of

a t t orney’ s f

ees i s j ust i fi ed w hen p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a re a w a rd e d
. U n itedA m . In s. C o . v. Me rr ill , 978 So
. 2d 61 3, 63 6 (M i ss. 2007)
. B eca us e t hi s C our tre ver s es t he puni t i ve dam ages aw ar d and re m ands fora new t r i al
o n p u n it ive d am ag es, i t al so v ac ates the aw ard o f att o rne y ’s fees. If pu n it ive d am ag es a re agai n aw ar ded, then att orney’ s f ees w oul d be an appr opr i at e cons i der at i on. ¶ 5 0
. A l t er nat i vel y, U ni on C arbi de ar gu e s tha tthe at t or ney’ s f ees aw ar d w as
u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y a n y f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t . W h i l e t h i s Co u r td e c l i n e s t o a d d r e s s th i s i s s u e , we not e t ha tthe i s s ue may a r i s e a ga i n on r e mand
. The tr i a l c ou r tmad e u t t e r l y no f i ndi ngs of fac t as t o h o w it d e ter m in e d the am o u n t of att o rne y ’s fees. If th e tri al co u rtco n side rs att orney’ s f

ees on r emand, i ts houl d m ake f i ndi ngs of

f acton the i s s ue. 15o b se rv a tio n .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 -1 -4 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). A n y a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s fe e s “ sh o u ld

be supp ort ed w i th f

actual det erm i nat i ons . ” Mis s . P ow er& L i ght Co. v. Cook , 8 32 So
. 2d 4 7 4 , 4 8 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). 

### 30 ¶5 1
. U n ion C arb ide a lso a rgu es th at th e c o u rt ’s aw ard o f $4 , 4 5 1
. 4 4 for N ix’s p ro ra ta sh are of the s peci al m as t erf

ees i s an abus e of

di s cr et i on, beca us e an a gr eed or derm andat ed that the s p ec ial m aster fees b e p aid p rop o rt ion all y by th e p arti es o n a p ro ra ta ba sis. T h is C o u rt has pr evi ous l y rul ed thatas s es s i ng the cos t s of a s peci al m as t eragai ns tthe nonpr evai l i ng party i s appr opr i at e, even w hen a pr evi ous or derr equi r ed thatthe part i es s pl i tthe cos tof t he
m a s te r. Cro w e v. Sm ith , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 8 -0 9 (M iss
. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e C o u rt n o ted th a t R u le 54 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Procedur e author i zes aw ar di ng cos t s t o the pr evai l i ng part y, and thatR ul e 53 i ndi cat es thatthe compens at i on of a s peci al m as t eri s a “c os t ” of
c o u rt . I d. ; M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 54( d) ; M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 53( a)
. I n Cr o we , the C o u rt fo u n d th a t “it appea r s thatthe courtm ade a pr el i m i nary de t erm i nat i on f orc om pens at i ng the mast er . T hen,
o n c e a p rev ail ing p arty h ad b ee n d eterm in e d , the c h a n c e llo r a ss e ss e d th e n o n -p re v a ili n g p a rty
w ith th o s e c o s ts w h ic h th e p re v a ilin g p a rt y h a d in c u rr e d f o r s e rv ic e s o f th e s p e c ia l m a s te r.” Cr o we , 603 So. 2d at308- 09. Fur ther , i tnot ed that“the of f i ci al expens es w hi ch the pr evai l i ng p arty i ncur s and w hi ch the non- pr evai l i ng party m us tr ei m bur s e ca nnotbe det erm i ned unt i l j udgm ent , w hen a pr evai l i ng party i s det erm i ned. ” I d. at308. T hus , U ni on C arbi de’ s ar gum entthati ts houl d nothave t o pay t he spe ci al m as t erfe e has no m er i t , and t he tr ia l c o u rt is a ff

ir m e d o n th is is s u e . 5. P ost j u dg m en t

Inter est ¶52. N i x re ques t ed t hatt he cour tsetpost j udgm enti nt er es tatt he r at e of fourper centper

### 31

annum t o a ccrue f

r om the day af

t erthe j ury r ender ed i t s ver di ct( O ct ober12, 2011)
. T he tr i al
courtaw ar ded pos t

j udgm enti nt er es tata r at e of ei ghtper centperannum, t o acc rue f r om O ct ob e r1 2, 2 01 1. U ni on Carbi de a r gu e s tha tthi s r a t e i mpos e s a p e na l f i ne o n U ni on C arbi de, pr ovi des a w i ndf al l t o the pl ai nt i f

f , and i s contr ar y t o the es t abl i s hed purpos e of p o stju d g m e n t in ter e st u n d e r M iss iss ip p i l a w . U n io n C a rb id e a rg u e s th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld have us ed the f

eder al r at e of

pos t j udgm enti nt er es t , w hi ch w oul d be 0. 11%
. Itals o ar gues th a t th e in te re s t s h o u ld n o t a c c ru e u n til th e tim e th e ju d g m e n t b e c o m e s a p p e a la b le
. ¶53. T he l aw s t at es that j udgm ent s “s hal l bear i nt er es t at a per annum r at e s et by the j udge hear i ng the compl ai ntfr om a dat e det erm i ned by s uch j udge t o be f ai rbuti n no eventpr i or t o the f i l i ng of the compl ai nt . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 17- 7 ( R ev. 2009). T he pl ai n l anguage
o f th e statute g ives the ju d g e w ide lati tud e to d eterm ine b o th the interest rat e a n d the d a te f r om w hi ch i truns , pr ovi ded t hat t he date i s nota dat e pr i ort o the dat e the compl ai ntw as fi le d . T h is C o u rt h a s u p h e ld p o s tju d g m e n t in te re s t r a te s o f e ig h t p e rc e n t a n d g re a te r. U . S. Fide lit y & G u a r. Co . v. E sta te o f Fra n c is , 825 So. 2d 38, 50 ( M i s s . 2002) ( r at e of one p e rc e n t ab o v e th e p rim e ra te o f e ig h t p e rc e n t w a s w ith in c h a n c e llo r’s d isc re tio n ); see a l so Miss . B a p tist H e a lth S y s., In c . v. K

e lly , 88 So. 3d 769, 782 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( uphol di ng ei ghtper centpos t

j udgm enti nt er es tr at e aw ar ded fr om the dat e of the ver di ct )
. I n f

act , t he in ter e st ra te a p p a re n tly w a s p re v io u sly s e t sta tu to rily a t eig h t p e rc e n t fo r “ a ll n o tes , ac c o u n ts and contr act s . ” See P ubli c E m ployee s ’R etir em ent

Sys . v. L angham , 812 So. 2d 969, 975 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). B a se d o n the b ro a d sta tu to ry lan g u a g e an d the fac t th a t th e ju d g e ’s a w a rd fe ll
w i thi n the s tr i ctur es of the s t atut e and f i nds s upporti n pas tcas el aw , the tr i al courtdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng pos t j udgm enti nt er es ta tthe r at e of ei ghtper cent , t o run f

r om

### 32

th e d a y a ft e r t h e ju ry v e rd ic t. CO NC L US I ON ¶5 4
. T h is C o u rtaffirm s the tr ial co u rt ’s de n ial o f th e m o ti o n for JN O V i n rega rd to the jury
v e r d i c ta wa r d i n g c o mp e n s a t o r y d a ma g e s t o Ni x b a s e d o n h i s i n a d e q u a t e wa rn i n g c l a i m. G iven the c o n fl ict ing e v iden ce su rrou n d ing the in ad eq u ate w arn ing claim , rea so n ab le j u rors coul d arr i ve atdi f

f er entconcl us i ons . I tw as al s o appr opr i at e t o s ubm i tthe i s s ue of puni t i ve damages t o the j ury, gi ven the evi dence of U ni on C arbi de’ s know l edge of the dange r s of
as bes t os and the i nadequa cy of i t s w arni ng. H ow ever , beca us e the tr i al courtm ade i m pr oper
c o m m e n ts th a t p o ten tiall y in flu e n c e d th e ju ry in m a k in g its p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a w a rd , this C our tr ever s es the puni t i ve dam ages aw ar d and re m ands fora new t r i al on puni t i ve damages onl y. M or eover , beca us e the att orney’ s f ees no l ongerhave any bas i s w i thouta puni t i ve damages aw ar d, thi s C our tvaca t es t he aw ard of att orney’ s f

ees , al l ow i ng the i s s ue t o be
c o n sid e re d if p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a re a g a in a w a rd e d . H o w e v e r, th e trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr in
aw ar di ng N i x hi s cos t s f orthe s peci al m as t er . L as t , the tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng pos t

j udgm enti nt er es tatthe r at e of ei ghtper centt o run fr om the day a f t ert he j ury ve r di ct , a s the s t atut e gi ves the j udge w i de di s cr et i on i n m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on, and hi s det erm i nat i on does notf al l out s i de r eas onabl e bounds as pr evi ous l y del i neat ed by the L e g is la tu re a n d th is C o u rt . ¶5 5
. T h ere fore , th is C o u rt a ffirm s in p a rt (th e ju ry v e rd ict a w a rd in g c o m p e n sa tory damages , t he spe ci al m as t erfe e, and t he aw ar d of pos t j udgm enti nt er es t ) , r ever s es i n part( the p u n it ive d am ag es a w ard ), v ac ates in p art (th e a w ard o f att o rne y ’s fees), an d rem an d s for a
new tri al on the is sue of pu nit i ve d am ages.

### 33

¶ 5 6
. AFF I RM ED I N P ART ; RE VE RS ED I N P ART ; VACAT ED I N P ART AND RE M ANDE D. L A M A R , K I T C H E N S , A N D C H A N D L E R , J J ., C O N C U R . D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y COL EM AN, J . COLE M AN, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY DI CK I NS ON , P . J . W AL L ER , C. J . , RA ND OL P H, P . J . , AN D P I E RC E , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI CKI NS ON, P RE S I DI NG J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N P ART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶57. R us s el l N i x s ett l ed w i th U ni on C arbi de C orpor at i on and si gned a r el eas e. I agr ee that the r el eas e cl ear l y al l ow ed hi m t o pur s ue hi s cl ai m f or“mesothel i om a . . . ordeath r es ul t i ng f r om . . . m es othel i om a . . . . ” B utthe r el eas e j us tas cl ear l y r el eas ed U ni on C arbi de C orpor at i on f

r om any and al l c laim s, caus e s orr i

ght s of ac ti on, de m and

s of e v e r y kind a nd nature w hat

s oeve r , i n c l u d i n g , wi th o u tl i mi t a t i o n , a l l f u tu r e a n d p r e s e n tc l a i ms th a t R U S S E L L E . N IX
. . . m a y n o w o r h e re a fte r h a v e in c lu d in g a n y a n d a ll as bes t os - r el at ed di s eas es , i nj ur i es , canc er s , and/ orm al i gnanci es , now or a ri s in g h e re a ft e r . . . . ¶5 8
. In m y v iew , releasin g “a n y an d all claim s, c au ses o r ri g h ts of ac ti o n , d em an d s o f ev ery ki nd and natur e w hat s oever ” unambi guous l y r el eas es cl ai m s f orpuni t i ve damages and att orney f

ees . I w oul d r ever s e the puni t i ve- damages a nd a t t orney- f ees a w ar ds a nd af

f i r m t he compensa t ory- damages aw ar d. CO L E M AN , J . , J OI NS T HI S OP I NI ON
. C O L E M A N , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶5 9. T he maj or i t y i s abs ol ut el y cor r ectw hen w r i t i ng, “A bs enta val i d cl ai m f or compensa t ory dam ages , t her e can be no cl ai m f orpuni t i ve damages
. ” H ow ever , i tdoes not

### 34

f ol l ow that , beca us e compens at ory damages ar e a pr er equi s i t e f orpuni t i ve damages , puni t i ve d a m a g e s a re aw a rd e d fo r a s u c c e ss fu l cla im o f a s p e c ific in ju ry . In fac t, s e m a n tica lly sp e a k in g , the fa c t th a t tw o se p a ra te te rm s – c o m p e n sa to ry a n d p u n iti v e – e x ist w o u ld in d ica te thatthe f or m eri s t o compensa t e f oran i nj ury and the l att eri s f or , w el l , s om ethi ng el s e. ¶60
. I agree w i th the res ult reached by P res i ding Just i ce D ickin so n , b ec ause the rel ease al l ow ed N i x t o pur s ue cl ai m s onl y f ori nj ury r es ul t i ng f

r om mesothel i om a. Puni t i ve damages d o n o t c o m p e n s a te f

o r a n in ju ry ; th e y p u n is h c o n d u c t. T . C . B . Con str. Co. , Inc. v. W . C . Fore T r ucking, I

nc. , 1 3 4 S o . 3d 7 0 1 , 7 0 4 (¶ 9 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ). M o reo v er, M issi ssipp i l aw d isf av o rs th e m . W ar r e n v. D e r i v aux , 996 So. 2d 729, 7 38 (¶27) ( M i s s . 2008)
. I n or dert o r eac h a
corr ectr es ul ton t he i s s ue, I bel i eve w e mustgo f ur therthan a s i m ple de cl ar at i on thatyou cannothave one w i thoutthe otherand exam i ne t he actual natur e of eac h type of

aw ar d i n the l i g h to f th e c o n tr a c tu a l t e r ms o f th e r e l e a s e . As th e r e l e a s e e x p l i c i t l y a p p l i e s t o a l l c l a i ms
ar i s i ng f r om U ni on C arbi de’ s conduct , otherthan a na rr ow exce pt i on for the i nj ur y of contr act i ng m es othel i om a, the aw ar ds of pu ni t i ve damages and att orneys ’ f ees s houl d be
r ever s ed and r ender ed. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.