A lawyer for Exxon Mobil Corp. yesterday promised the residents of a Baltimore County neighborhood that the company would "pay money damages to the people who were harmed" by a 26,000-gallon gasoline leak that contaminated the groundwater beneath their homes two years ago.
"We want to make it right," the lawyer, James F. Sanders, said at the start of a trial in which 309 plaintiffs are trying to paint the oil giant as a careless steward of its facilities and the responsible party in what they view as the ruin of their land. "There is some harm here in this case. Some plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress and some plaintiffs have suffered loss in property values."
At first glance, Sanders' admission might - in political-debate terms - be considered a game changer, or at least an acknowledgment that his opponent's case has enough merit to force him to concede part of his argument.
But the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Stephen L. Snyder, said during a break in the Baltimore County Circuit Court trial that Sanders' offer was purely tactical, an effort to steer the jury toward granting compensatory rather than punitive damages - the latter often a far greater sum.
"I predicted he would say that, to lessen the blow," Snyder said, referring to Sanders' offer to help those affected. "It's to acknowledge responsibility for compensatory damages. But, for us, it sets the stage for an evaluation of the misconduct."
A central part of the plaintiffs' case pivots on allegations that Exxon had known for at least seven years before the incident that the electronic leak detectors it used at its gas station in Jacksonville were perennially defective but that the company failed to monitor them properly or replace them with a more reliable brand.
For the company to prevail in its wish to avoid punitive damages - which Snyder said could rise to as much as $2 billion - "you'd have to ignore the documented evidence of seven years."
In his presentation, Exxon's lawyer said that, while the company accepted liability for actual, proven harm, it did not commit fraud or act with "intentional malice" or negligence. On the contrary, Sanders said, the company and its contractors made every effort to begin cleaning up the mess as soon as the underground leak was discovered on Feb. 17, 2006 - which was later determined to be 37 days after it had sprouted from a high-pressure pipe.
