The Georgia Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court's decision to conduct a partial retrial in a toxic tort case involving Becton, Dickinson and Company and C. R. Bard. This ruling affects Gary Walker, the plaintiff, who claims his cancer was caused by exposure to harmful chemicals from the defendants' facilities. The case, docketed as A26A1118, highlights the complexities of jury decisions in tort cases, especially regarding punitive damages.

The dispute centers on whether the defendants acted with specific intent to cause harm through their use of ethylene oxide (EtO), a chemical linked to cancer. Walker, who worked near the defendants' facilities for decades, was diagnosed with diffuse large b-cell lymphoma in 2017, which he attributes to his exposure to EtO. The case has drawn attention due to its implications for similar toxic tort claims and the standards for awarding punitive damages.

Background

Gary Walker filed his lawsuit against Becton, Dickinson and Company and C. R. Bard in November 2021 after discovering the potential dangers of EtO emissions from their facilities in Covington, Georgia. Walker worked as a truck driver, frequently transporting materials to and from these facilities, and lived nearby for many years. His claims included negligence and nuisance, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

The trial began on April 14, 2025, and was bifurcated into two phases. In the first phase, the jury found the defendants liable for negligence and awarded Walker $20 million in compensatory damages. In the second phase, the jury deliberated on punitive damages but became deadlocked on whether the defendants acted with specific intent to cause harm. After further deliberation, they awarded Walker $50 million in punitive damages, but one juror later recanted her agreement with the verdict.

The Ruling

The trial court initially declared a mistrial for the entire punitive damages phase but later decided on a partial retrial focused solely on the issue of specific intent to cause harm. The defendants appealed this decision, arguing that a full retrial was necessary. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling, stating, "Limiting the scope of retrial to only those distinct portions of the judgment that are infirm serves the dual objectives of judicial economy and respect for the jury’s verdict."

The Court of Appeals clarified that the jury's findings in the first phase and the initial punitive damages verdict were valid and separable from the specific intent issue. They emphasized that the law allows for a partial retrial when different aspects of a case can be divided without affecting the overall judgment. The court ruled that the determination of specific intent could be addressed separately, allowing for efficiency in the judicial process.

Impact

This ruling sets a significant precedent for future toxic tort cases, particularly in how courts handle jury verdicts and retrials. It underscores the importance of jury determinations in liability and damages while allowing courts to correct specific issues without starting the entire trial process over again. The decision may influence how similar cases are litigated, especially regarding punitive damages and juror unanimity.

Walker’s case highlights the ongoing concerns about chemical exposure and public health, particularly in communities near industrial facilities. The outcome of the upcoming retrial on specific intent could further shape the landscape of toxic tort litigation in Georgia and beyond.

What's Next

The defendants can appeal the ruling, but it is unclear if they will pursue that route. The upcoming retrial will focus on whether the defendants acted with specific intent to cause harm, which is crucial for determining the final amount of punitive damages. Details regarding the scheduling of the retrial were not available in the court filing.