Sherwin-Williams Co. v. GAINES EX REL. POLLARD
75 So. 3d 41
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Trellvion Gaines, born 1991, lived in a house in Fayette, Mississippi, painted with lead-based Sherwin-Williams paint at various times.
- The house occupied by Trellvion’s family was built in the early 1900s and burned in 1994; lead-containing remains were found at the site.
- September 1993 blood tests showed elevated Trellvion lead levels (30 µg/dL and 19 µg/dL five days apart); Trellvion now has cognitive deficits alleged to be from lead exposure.
- Plaintiff presented witnesses who testified lead-based paint was applied by Sherwin-Williams in the home; Sherwin-Williams contended it phased out lead paint starting in the 1930s and ceased residential lead paint in 1972.
- The case filed in 2000 proceeded to trial in 2009; a unanimous jury awarded Trellvion $7 million in compensatory damages; Sherwin-Williams moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered in favor of Sherwin-Williams on causation grounds, finding plaintiff failed to establish reliable causation proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient causation proof by plaintiff? | Gaines relied on experts linking lead exposure to cognitive injury via history and data. | Causation was not scientifically proven; experts offered speculation and unreliable methods. | No sufficient causation proof; judgment notwithstanding the verdict warranted. |
| Were the plaintiff's experts' opinions reliable under Daubert gatekeeping? | Experts Rosen and Lidsky are credible scientists whose methods support causation. | Opinions were speculative, based on unreliable baselines and post hoc reasoning. | Opinions unreliable and inadmissible; gatekeeping duties not satisfied. |
| Did the trial court properly handle the reliability of expert testimony before trial? | Trial court should have rigorously screened expert reliability at the Daubert stage. | Trial court had discretion; concerns should be addressed by cross-examination and jury instructions. | Trial court should have more thoroughly evaluated reliability; but ultimate holding relied on lack of causation proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (trial court discretion in admitting expert testimony)
- Rucker v. Hopkins, 499 So.2d 766 (Miss. 1986) (improbable testimony may create jury issue; not automatic directed verdict)
- Doe v. Stegall, 757 So.2d 201 (Miss. 2000) (impeached testimony can still raise jury issues; exceptions at trial-stage scrutiny)
- Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So.2d 134 (Miss. 2005) (elements of product liability require proof of identification, exposure, and proximate cause)
- Hill v. Mills, 26 So.3d 322 (Miss. 2010) (experts must base conclusions on known data, not subjective speculation)