Mistrial Is Declared in Lockheed Case
The eight-month trial of a chemical exposure lawsuit by Lockheed workers ended in dramatic fashion Thursday when a judge declared a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a verdict despite the longest deliberations in a civil case in U. S. history.
After 12 weeks of deliberations in the extraordinarily complex case, jurors said they were close many times to finding at least three chemical companies at fault for injuries allegedly suffered by workers who built the F-117A Stealth fighter and other military aircraft at Lockheed’s Burbank complex during the 1970s and ‘80s.
But jurors said the months of heated arguments--and even personal attacks and strong-arm tactics--failed to produce the 9-3 majority needed to hold the companies financially responsible, or absolve them, of injuries suffered by workers at the facility, which included the top-secret and now defunct “Skunk Works” facility.
The workers had sued Lockheed and nearly two dozen of the company’s chemical suppliers for allegedly failing to provide adequate warnings on the dangers of their products.
After jurors asked Superior Court Judge Melvin B. Grover to declare the mistrial, defense lawyer Robert H. McMillan, representing the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., described the proceedings as “a colossal waste of public resources.”
Visibly disappointed lawyers for the Lockheed workers and their family members pledged to seek a retrial as soon as possible.
“We’re not going to give up fighting for these people,” said Brian Gonzalez, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs.
But perhaps no one was as upset at the outcome as Grover, the judge who imposed a gag order on lawyers in the case and in recent weeks had to stave off a rebellion among bitterly divided and frustrated jurors.
“I feel terrible,” Grover told a reporter, his voice rising in anger. “I spent 10 goddamned months of my life on this thing.”
Many jurors said they were relieved that the trial was over, and satisfied that they had done their best despite what seven of them described in a note to the judge as the “emotional and antagonistic” environment in the jury room. But they also expressed anger at some colleagues for failing to budge to reach a verdict, and at Lockheed, for quietly settling with the injured workers before the trial began.
“We were trying to come up with a consensus, to come up with a verdict,” said juror Kathryn Stroupe, 31, a Los Angeles social worker, “and we just couldn’t do it.”
The trial involved 14 workers, chosen as “pilot” plaintiffs from a group of 624 current and former Lockheed employees. They all had filed damage claims against Lockheed and firms that supplied it with solvents, resins and epoxies, blaming them for maladies ranging from skin rashes and memory loss to cancer deaths.
Lawyers for both sides hoped that the verdicts would lead to settlement of the other claims, holding future trials to a minimum.
Plaintiff attorneys had to establish both that the workers were harmed by chemical exposure, and that their injuries were because of the chemical firms’ failure to provide adequate warnings.
The jurors found that one chemical company, Allied Signal Inc., had provided adequate safety warning. At least nine jurors agreed that three other firms--General Electric, Ashland Chemical Co. and J. T. Baker--had failed to adequately warn of the possible dangers of their products. But in each of those cases, nine jurors could not agree that the inadequate warnings actually resulted in worker injuries.
Lockheed settled and was dismissed from the case before the trial began in August. Details of the settlement were kept from the jury, and the terms were to remain secret by request of Lockheed and agreement of other parties.
The Times has learned, however, that Lockheed agreed to pay $33 million, along with $300,000 to a team of judicial mediators to distribute the settlement fund among the plaintiffs.
Thus, the workers will not go away empty-handed. But while the settlement works out to about $50,000 per worker, it is unknown how much will go to attorneys, expert witness fees and other legal costs.
Lockheed officials have said they settled only to avoid the cost and disruption of a long trial, not because of any wrongdoing. The issue also was complicated by security considerations, Lockheed has said. Company officials refused comment Thursday on the mistrial and the terms of their settlement.
Several jurors were insistent on holding the chemical companies liable, and an equal number--about three or four--adamantly refused to agree. Because the many separate votes to reach a verdict repeatedly fell at least one vote short, tension in the jury room grew to the breaking point and beyond.
“There were racial slurs, propaganda, you name it,” said Katie Covington, 51, a gas company worker from South-Central Los Angeles, who is black. “But I felt strongly about what I said, and stood by it.”
Covington, who said she could not hold the chemical companies liable, said the deliberations dragged on because some jurors “were fighting a personal war against the chemical companies” and refused to listen to the evidence, or to their fellow jurors.
“We were this close to killing somebody,” she said. “I never want to go through that again. It was hell.”
Juror Edna Fields said that during one particularly tense moment she started moving to attack a male juror when two other jurors held her back. “I was ready to go to blows,” said Fields, 44, of Pasadena, who felt that warnings by the chemical companies were adequate.
But other jurors voiced equally strong opinions about the liability of the chemical companies and Lockheed.
Some, such as jury Foreman Melinda Santa Ana of Rosemead, thought that the companies failed to issue adequate warnings, but also felt the plaintiffs’ lawyers never proved that any injuries were caused by the chemicals.
Still other jurors also supported holding some of the chemical companies liable for damages, but they were outvoted repeatedly.
One conclusion most reached was that Lockheed would have been held liable had it remained part of the case. “I think a lot of the jurors were angry,” juror Ivory Johnson said. “We found 100% blame for Lockheed but then we were told we couldn’t find them to blame.”
The nearly two dozen defendants included such giants as Exxon, Shell, Arco and DuPont.
“If the plaintiffs couldn’t convince a jury in this trial,” said McMillan, the Minnesota Mining lawyer, “they’ll never prevail. It proves what we’ve said all along--that this case has no merit.”
After five months of testimony, jurors began deliberations on Feb. 1. Three weeks ago, after jurors had deliberated nine weeks, several lawyers and researchers said that the deliberations were the longest for any civil case in Los Angeles and perhaps in the nation.
Even in the longest civil trial in U. S. history--a 3 1/2-year trial in Missouri that also involved toxic exposure--jurors took only eight weeks to reach a verdict.
