Categorized | News

Federal jury rules on case brought by servicemen, families

MEDIA RELEASE

* Stephanie Rodriguez, et al. v. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc., (Case No. 1:08-cv-00189-SOM-KSC,) United States District Court, District of Hawaii

Following a six-week trial, a Honolulu federal court jury has returned a verdict in favor of ammunition manufacturer, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc. (GDATP), in a case brought by Army servicemen and families injured while using an 81 mm mortar system during a training exercise.

Plaintiffs Stephanie Rodriguez, Jacob Rodriguez, Samuel Oyola-Perez, Julius Riggins, and Nilda Meyer brought this strict products liability action against GDATP.

Lead trial counsel, James Yukevich of Los Angeles firm, Yukevich Calfo & Cavanaugh, noted that this defense verdict was achieved under the worst circumstances.

“The venue is extremely pro-military and plaintiffs, who included a four-year-old boy who lost his father, were extremely sympathetic. The photographs of plaintiffs’ injuries shown to the jury were especially shocking and gruesome. Pre-trial, mediators suggested that the ‘price of admission’ for GDATP to begin settlement negotiations was $10 million,” he said.

The lawsuit stems from an accident that occurred March 10, 2006, during a live-fire training mission on the Big Island.

Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez, Sergeant Samuel Oyola-Perez, Private Julius Riggins, and Specialist Wilfredo Dayandante were firing 81 mm mortar cartridges loaded, assembled, and packed by Martin Marietta, GDATP’s predecessor.

During the training exercise, a mortar cartridge prematurely exploded in the mortar gun, causing fatal injuries to Oscar Rodriguez and serious, debilitating, and disfiguring injuries to the other men in the mortar platoon.

The plaintiffs alleged the subject mortar cartridge was defectively manufactured, and the defect caused the premature explosion.

Under Hawaii law, plaintiffs were not required to identify a specific defect. However, their expert, John Nixon, testified the defect was likely a crack in the metal shell body of the cartridge, or a void or foreign object in the high explosive filler.

The jury was given a res ipsa loquitor instruction, which allowed the jury to infer a defect was present if there was no other explanation for how the incident could have occurred other than from a defect.

Counsel for GDATP argued the accident occurred due to human error, or specifically, a “double load.”

The evidence showed plaintiffs were unaware that a previous mortar cartridge dropped in the mortar gun had misfired. The mortar crew then dropped another mortar cartridge on top of the cartridge that had misfired.

The two mortar cartridges combined to cause an explosion in the mortar gun. Double load incidents have been known historically to occur during the firing of mortars, both in training and in battle.

GDATP presented evidence that the circumstances of the training mission were such that mistakes were likely to be made. The accident occurred during the afternoon of the last day of an intensive two-week training exercise, and the men were eager to finish and return to base.

The men were training in adverse weather conditions on that day, as it was cold, windy, and rainy. There was a shortage of men on that day, requiring Sergeant Rodriguez to perform three roles in violation of standard operating procedures.

In its defense case, GDATP called as its only witness the lead investigator for the Army Research Development Engineering Center (ARDEC), Philip Leong.

Leong was responsible for conducting the official technical investigation of this incident for the Army. Following the investigation, Leong ruled out all potential causes of the incident except the double load scenario.

Relying upon his 30 years of experience investigating malfunction accidents, Leong concluded the “signature” of this accident matched prior double load signatures involving mortars.

When a double load incident occurs with a mortar system, the cartridge explodes in the upper portion of the mortar gun, whereas if a defect is present, the explosion occurs in the bottom portion of the mortar gun. In this case, the explosion of the subject mortar cartridge clearly occurred in the upper portion of the mortar gun.

In their closing argument, plaintiffs asked for approximately $29 million in total damages, which did not vary much from their last pre-trial demand of $26.1 million. During trial, GDATP had offered $5.1 million to settle all claims.

After deliberating for two and a half days, nine jurors unanimously found the subject mortar cartridge was not defective.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 

Quantcast