DAUBERT APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO CLAIM THAT OILFIELD OPERATIONS CAUSED TOXIC CONTAMINATION

摘要

In Twyman v. GHK Corp., Okla. Civ. App. No. 98426, Jan. 23, 2004 (opinion released for publication), Plaintiffs claimed that oilfield operations conducted by Defendants GHK and Mobil on and adjacent to Twyman's dairy farm resulted in pollutants migrating from their oilfield reserve pits that contaminated Twyman's water well. As a consequence, a number of Twyman's cows experienced health problems, some died, and Twyman claimed this contamination caused him to lose his entire herd, rendering his farm worthless. He sued for negligence, nuisance, and deceit. From a jury award of 7,250,000 dollars, the trial judge ordered remittitur, resulting in a reduction to 500,000 dollars. On appeal, the issue was the reliability of expert scientific testimony on causation under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In 2003, Oklahoma adopted Daubert in Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003). To Defendants' appeal challenge that Plaintiffs' expert testimony failed to meet the reliability standards of Daubert, Plaintiffs asserted Daubert should not be applied since trial was before the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted Daubert in 2003. The court of civil appeals, however, found Daubert to be applicable, noting that Defendants had argued for the applicability of Daubert at all appropriate stages in the trial court, that retroactive application of a newly announced rule is "the traditional common law approach rather than the exception" and a matter of judicial policy, that Daubert was not novel and could not be considered a bolt out of the blue since Daubert had been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court some 10 years before its official adoption by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Further, there had been no showing that the controverted evidence here had previously been accepted as valid.