293 P.3d 917
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Over 200 plaintiffs sue Shell Western Exploration and Shell Oil for toxic torts in Hobbs, NM, asserting negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and trespass.
- Nine named plaintiffs were selected for an initial trial, with lupus and autoimmune conditions at issue among others; other injuries included respiratory, neurological, and psychiatric claims.
- The Grimes lease site and Tasker pit had long-standing oilfield contamination, with soil and groundwater hydrocarbons discovered after the Grimes battery was dismantled.
- Pretrial development uncovered a subterranean layer of hydrocarbons beneath Tasker Road properties identified as former Taslcer pit, fueling plaintiffs’ theory of exposure to a deleterious chemical mix (pristane, benzene, mercury).
- The district court granted partial summary judgment excluding Dr. Dahlgren’s lupus/autoimmune causation opinions and related epidemiologic data, ending those claims; other claims proceeded to trial.
- Following a jury verdict defeating the remaining claims, plaintiffs moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct/bias, which the district court denied; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Dahlgren's causation opinions | Dahlgren's study and methods are admissible under Alberico/Looser standards; cross-sectional design should be treated flexibly. | Dahlgren's causation opinions rely on unreliable data and gaps between association and causation; not scientifically proven. | Exclusion affirmed; partial summary judgment upheld. |
| Proper standard for causation proof in toxic torts under NM law | General and specific causation can be proven through epidemiologic and supporting evidence. | Causation requires reliable, bridging evidence; the cross-sectional study alone is insufficient. | General/specific causation require reliable linkage; district court's approach upheld. |
| Rule 11-702/Daubert/Alberico under NM law | NM should apply Alberico with some leeway; Daubert-style gatekeeping is not strictly necessary. | Daubert/Alberico standard applies; trial court must ensure reliability and relevance. | Court properly applied Alberico/Daubert framework and reviewed reliability/relevance. |
| Admissibility and effect of juror affidavits under Rule 11-606(B) and UJI 13-110 | Juror discussions during trial (per UJI 13-110) are protected deliberations; affidavits should be admissible to show misconduct. | Rule 11-606(B) shields deliberations; only limited pre-deliberation statements may be admitted. | Discussions during trial are shielded; admissibility limited; new-trial denied on substantial grounds. |
| New-trial based on juror misconduct | Juror bias and predetermination undermined fair trial; affidavits show misconduct. | Juror statements were permissible discussion of evidence; insufficient evidence of fixed bias. | District court's denial of new trial affirmed on balance of evidence and safeguards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping standard for scientific evidence)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion review for expert testimony reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert extends to all expert testimony)
- State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993) (Rule 11-702 prerequisites for expert testimony; reliability and relevance)
- Lee v. Martinez, 2004-NMSC-027, 136 N.M. 166, 96 P.3d 291 (N.M. 2004) (relevance and reliability framework for scientific evidence)
- Andrews v. U.S. Steel Corp., 2011-NMCA-032, 149 N.M. 461, 250 P.3d 887 (N.M. 2011) (general vs. specific causation in toxic torts)
- Parkhill v. Alderman-Cave Milling Co. of N.M., 2010-NMCA-110, 149 N.M. 140, 245 P.3d 585 (N.M. 2010) (expert testimony must rest on reliable foundation; avoid conjecture)
- Rios v. Danuser Mach. Co., 110 N.M. 87, 792 P.2d 419 (Ct. App. 1990) (limits on juror testimony to impeach verdict)