Document 5kpOpdJQqJw9zaQ0Edm3oB8y5

RESEARCH & COMMUNICATIONS Alderman v. 3M Focus Group Report East Alton, IL August 18, 2009 Prepared by: Richard A. Jenson Jenson Research & Communications, Inc. 12400 State Highway 71, Suite 350, PMB 191 Austin, Texas 78738 Office (512) 264-3826, (512) 266-5849 Fax (512) 264-3827 RAJenson@aol.com www.jensonresearch.com Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................3 ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Weaknesses................................................................................................................................................ 5 Company Responsibility........................................................................................................................ 5 Table I: Allocation of Responsibility for "Other".......................................... 5 Mr. Alderman Did Not Always Wear a Mask........................................................................................ 6 Table II: Alderman Did Not Always Wear a Mask.............................................................................7 Buyer Responsibility.............................................................................................................................. 8 Strengths................................................................................................................................................... 9 Labeling..................................................................................................................................................9 What 3M Knew.......................................................................................................................................9 Table III: Plaintiff Most Convincing Argument - 3M's Knowledge.................................................. 10 Table IV: What 3M Knew about the Masks..................................................................................... 11 3M False Advertisements.................................................................................................................... 12 Other Issues............................................................................................................................................. 13 Proper Adjustment of the Mask.......................................................................................................... 13 Two Masks............................................................................................................................................13 Allocation of Responsibility.................................................................................................................... 14 Table V: Allocation of Responsibility............................................................................................... 14 Table VI: Reasons for Allocation of Responsibility.......................................................................... 15 Damages...................................................................................................................................................16 Table VII: Damages.......................................................................................................................... 16 JURY SELECTION................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Table VIII: Award by Gender.......................................................................................................... 17 Table IX: Award by "Would you have a hard time suing company for a defective product?"...... 18 Table X: Award by "Could you award money for mental anguish?"............................................... 19 Table XI: Award by "Have you ever worn a face mask or respirator?"..........................................20 Table XII: Opinions about Mask Effectiveness and Verdicts........................................................... 20 Table XIII: Award by Limits.............................................................................................................. 21 Table XIV: Award by "There are too many lawsuits filed here in Madison County.".................... 22 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE DATA.............................................................................................................................. 23 APPENDIX B: CORRELATION TABLES............................................................................................................................68 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 2 Executive Summary As with previous research, the concerns of this case were clear. Those concerns were twofold. First, it was the tendency of the mock jurors to blame the employers for purchasing and providing the masks to employees. Second, it was the tendency of the mock jurors to blame Mr. Alderman for not wearing the mask one hundred percent of the time. At the same time, most participants felt 3M had some responsibility and felt the masks were not protective. Nora (#8), who was very pro plaintiff (her brother died from cancer) stated in deliberations, "3M should be held responsible but not in a major way." On the other end, Michael (#20), who on his questionnaire wanted to give 3M zero percent responsibility admitted in deliberations, "All three are involved." However, the concern about Mr. Alderman's personal responsibility and the employer's responsibility dominated with most participants. The concept of personal responsibility is one of the strongest attitudes in America today. It affects politics, religion, and has dramatic impact on most personal injury cases. As with this case, a part of the personal responsibility attitude is involved with the idea of self protection. We have been taught and want to believe that if we take responsibility for ourselves and those around us we can protect ourselves. This is true even if the actions would not have provided protection from whatever harm is done to the plaintiff. This proclivity in jurors is described by psychologist as "defensive attribution." That is to attribute the responsibility to the plaintiff to justify the belief that a person can provide a defense to the harm for themselves or their loved ones. Stephanie pointed out in deliberations, "If you're wearing the mask and it is not working or if you are not wearing it and it is not working, what difference does it make?" The response from most of the group was simply - "he should have worn his mask." This concept was very strong and in the practice Voir Dire, Dave the painter stated the strongly held belief that he maintained throughout the mock trial that he knew people that didn't wear their masks and they had to be responsible for that fact. Stephanie's comments were correct; if the mask does not protect you then how can not wearing it be a cause of the harm? However, this concept did not cause anyone other than her to alter their opinion about Mr. Alderman's responsibility. The concept of the employer liability is also a deep seated opinion among many Americans. The concept of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration comes from the belief that an employer, especially a large one, has responsibilities to protect its own workers. This concept comes from what is essentially the inverse view of "we must protect ourselves", yet comes into play in the same way. The jurors are essentially looking at proximate cause to equate with the CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 3 event or action closest to the actual harm. In this case the closest is Alderman, and next, the employer. In fact, some participants resorted to the antiquated concept that the buyer should beware or the buyer is responsible to insure that the product is safe. The key to this case must be to focus the case more narrowly on the choices that 3M made and the marketing that 3M undertook, while anchoring Mr. Alderman's responsibility to the lowest possible number. The case theme in the focus group presentation involve what seems like an excellent story, i.e. that 3M needed to find a use for the paper bra they developed and so determined it could become a mask and sold that mask without the proper warning. As compelling as it is, that story surprisingly put the focus on the mask and the mask users, instead of 3M. The story instead has to focus on the choices that 3M made and the money they made from those choices. This is a similar story, but framed about 3M - not the mask. While mention was made of some of the choices the visual, as well as the auditory story, must highlight those choices. Also 3M's marketing must be a part of the focus. The fact they sold millions of these masks and chose to market to companies they knew were involved with dangerous materials was an issue. One of Grace's key points, which many others agreed with was, "Those companies should have been smart enough to know paper masks wouldn't protect the workers." What 3M did to market these masks must slightly be reframed so that the many companies were fooled. That company, after large company, after multinational company, would purchase these masks for use in toxic areas cannot be coincidence or evil intent by every company. The focus needs to be on companies as many as possible - not just one employer. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 4 Analysis Weaknesses Company Responsibility The concept of the employer liability is a deep seated opinion among many Americans. The concept of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration comes from the belief that an employer, especially a large one, has responsibilities to protect its own workers. Many participants felt what Grace felt when she explained that these big companies "should have been smart enough to know paper masks wouldn't protect their employees." In the focus group questionnaire, participants were given an "other" category. While this choice will not be on the actual verdict form, it was included in the study in order to gather more information about the employer's responsibility. The following table shows those participants who allocated some percentage of responsibility to "other," and their explanations for doing so. Table l: Allocation ofResponsibilityfor "Other" No. Name 1 Joe 3 Scott 5 Paul 6 Dave 7 Mary 8 Margaret 9 Olaolwa 11 Cathy Other 25% 80% 50% 25% 50% 73% 50% 50% Why those percentages? Alderman had no idea the mask he was using did not protect from asbestos. 3M, GM; and American Mineral knew that this product did not work. 3M used false advertising with these face masks. Plaintiff was for times he took off or did not wear mask. 40% each for GM & AM for knowingly buying a faulty product and distributing it to workers who worked in harmful situations. 10% for 3M for false advertising about use of the 8500. Alderman chose not to wear the mask in some situations. In others his employers put him in situations where the mask would not protect him. Other = GM/Mineral. Other = company. Mr. Alderman knew he should have never at any moment stopped wearing his mask and in his own words, he did, and the companies supplying the mask should have checked on the product and its safety for their workers more. Once Daryl is informed of his responsibility it lies on him to take care of himself. 3M also should be held accountable for distributing product knowing it was faulty. The company Mr. Alderman worked for also [responsible] for inspecting product and not going cheap route. The companies Mr. Alderman worked for are responsible for the masks he wore. The co's are responsible for conditions and seeing things were done safely. It all started with 3M's marketing. They should not have led people to believe that these masks were all that safe. 1 think thefact that they waited until this decade to assign warnings on packages was especially careless. On the other hand, it should have been AM and GM's responsibility not to go with a mask that wasn't shown to work. Finally, if Alderman did indeed take off his mask occasionally, he should share some guilt. Because Mr. Alderman knew to wear the mask at all times and the companies should of made sure that they would protect their employees from the asbestos. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 5 No. Name 12 Anna 16 Nicole 17 Christina 19 Ariel 20 Ryan Other 50% 10% 50% 50% 41% Why those percentages? Mr. Alderman chose on more than one occasion not to use the mask and that the companies did not look at the product more carefully and the companies did not enforce the use of the mask. Mr. Alderman knew about the dangers but decided to take the mask off then again, somebody should have said something to him about not wearing the mask that he had taken off. 3M should've been more cautious on the companies they chose to hire. Well, 1 feel that Daryl should have been more cautious and aware of the dangers he was surrounded by and should have been more persistent in regards to his health even if he wasn't diagnosed until later in life. 1 also feel that the employers are more responsible for not providing asbestos protection masks that are certified with a stamp for approval. Mr. Alderman was a faithful employee. Regardless of years committed, he is not above rules, regulations, and instructions. He only did what he was allowed to do because of seniority. 3M is showing a lot of concern for GM which makes it look like more than business (kind of like big brother taking up for little brother). Mr. Alderman Did Not Always Wear a Mask Part of the personal responsibility attitude is involved with the idea of self protection. We have been taught and want to believe that if we take responsibility for ourselves and those around us we can protect ourselves. This is true even if the actions would not have provided protection from whatever harm is done to the plaintiff. This proclivity in jurors is described by psychologist as "defensive attribution." That is to attribute the responsibility to the plaintiff to justify the belief that a person can provide a defense to the harm for themselves or their loved ones. Stephanie pointed out in deliberations, "If you're wearing the mask and it is not working or if you are not wearing it and it is not working, what difference does it make?" The response was simply he should have worn his mask. This concept was very strong and in the practice Voir Dire, Dave the painter stated the strongly held belief that he maintained throughout the mock trial that he knew people that didn't wear their masks and they had to be responsible for that fact. The following table shows those participants who found for the defendant and explained they at least partly did so because of Mr. Alderman's failure to consistently wear a mask. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 6 Table II: Alderman Did Not Always Wear a Mask No. Name 1 FIND IN FAVOR OF: Why? Because Mr. Alderman had admitted he had not always worn his mask 4 Chris Defendant properly. For the simple fact, Alderman knew he was working in a harmful place, he admitted in his own words that he removed and sometimes didn't wear it at all. How can 1 blame a mask company even if they knew the product 6 Dave Defendant didn't work, if the man didn't wear the mask anyway? Because the other comp should be held responsible for what they bought 11 Cathy Defendant and Mr. Alderman admits to not wearing the mask all the time. 1 feel that the company who chose to use the mask are at fault as well as 12 Anna Defendant Mr. Alderman. Mr. Alderman was at fault for not wearing the mask at all times while at 16 Nicole Defendant work. 18 Pat Plaintiff 1/2 and 1/2 of not wearing mask. TRIAL NOTES: While one could argue that not wearing a defective mask cannot be irresponsible, this likely would not convince jurors with a personal responsibility schema that Mr. Alderman is not responsible. More likely, it will be necessary to accept some responsibility while at the same time arguing that there is none. This is similar to the type of argument defense attorneys often have to make that there is no liability but if the jury feels that is incorrect, there should only be limited damages. In this case it may be necessary to anchor the responsibility of my Alderman at 5-10% while arguing against any liability. Of course with the 8710 mask, this argument will need to change slightly. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 7 Buyer Responsibility A sub-part of the company responsibility is the idea that the buyer of a product should know the appropriateness of the product to the chosen application. One group in deliberations got into a heated argument when one member suggested the masks were like a baseball bat. Not a danger if used properly, but could be misused as an attack weapon. So the masks could be safe or dangerous. As Jerry kept repeating in deliberations, many jurors felt, "It is the responsibility of the buyer to determine what it can do." For many of those who wanted to put the majority of blame on the company it was a throw back to liaisefaire economics. The "buyer beware" attitude was very strong in that group even though they likely would blame a seller of another product since the buyer is a big company they should have the resources to check what they are buying. In her questionnaire, Cathy said the reason she supported the defense was, "Because the other company should be held responsible for what they bought." CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 8 Strengths Labeling After the plaintiff presentation, Latesha believed the plaintiff should definitely win because, "Because the mask did not work, and there was never any warnings that the mask would not work. It's very clear that the mask does not work and never did." She went on to describe the plaintiffs most convincing argument as, "That there was never any warning labels until 2006 because the company 3M never made it to where there was warning labels on their masks." Even though an example was shown of what the label should have contained and where it should have been placed, almost no one brought that up in deliberations or noted it on the questionnaire. This may have resulted from the human mind's tendency to recall visuals more than verbal statements. Or, it may have resulted in participants seeing the image but not fully appreciating the significance. The information provided by the plaintiff showed how the label could have been put on the mask itself, thereby insuring the end user would see this information. TRIAL NOTES: This demonstrative was impactful for some participants but other were confused because of what they visually learned - that there was a label on the mask. This can be a very difficult balancing act for the plaintiff to show what should have been done without sending the wrong visual message. This point should be emphasized by showing both masks but also have a visual of the label coming off of the mask and a final visual of a blank mask. What 3M Knew When asked about why they felt 3M should have at least some percentage of responsibility, a majority of participants indicated that it was because of 3M knowledge. The following table shows that fourteen of the nineteen participants thought 3M's knowledge was the plaintiffs strongest argument. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 9 Table III: PlaintiffMost Convincing Argument - 3M's Knowledge No. Name 1 Joe 2. Plaintiff MOST convincing. That 3M still put the mask on the market even though they knew the mask didn't work. 3. Why? 1 feel like every worker that put the mask on has some right of money from 3M for false advertising. 3 Scott That they knew the mask wouldn't work. That is false advertising to say it does. 4 Chris That 3M knew that their products were not fully protecting. 5 Paul The advertisements saving that 3M claimed the mask worked. This is hard evidence that 3M claimed protection and thus also assumed some responsibility. 6 Dave About the facts they knew it did not protect against asbestos. Cause it's the facts. 8 Margaret 3M knew the masks never worked. It was too important to leave out. The way that he presented the information of how the mask was developed and how it repeated failed safety inspections only to finally pass muster when it was tested 9 Olaolwa under controlled conditions. He was able to back up his position with documentation. 11 Cathy If they know they didn't work why keep That they know that the mask didn't work. selling them. 12 Anna The fact that 3M knew that the mask was not doing the job it was designed to do. The fact that 3M kept the mask on the market for so long after knowing it served no purpose. The company was about the safety of the cause and they knew what would happen if 15 Mattie you should not wear the mask. 16 Nicole The proof about the masks worn. The company knew about the dangers but sold the masks anyway. The following table shows responses taken immediately after the plaintiff presentation. As can be seen, several participants believed the plaintiff should probably win at this point, because of what 3M knew about the masks. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 10 Table IV: What 3M Knew about the Masks No. Name 1 Joe 1. Who should win? Plaintiff probably Why? To me, Alderman and his family suffered for 18 months from this horrible disease. 3M knew that this mask didn't work but still put it on the market. 4 Chris 9 Olaolwa 13 Cyndi 19 Ariel 20 Ryan Plaintiff probably Plaintiff probably Plaintiff probably Plaintiff definitely Plaintiff probably 3M knew that their product was not fully protecting workers. The fact that 3M knew the mask was unfit for the type of work Alderman was doing yet marketed it to those types of industries means that they should be held liable. 3M was negligent selling a product that did not work, knowing that, they were trying to fool the industries by deception and omission causing many illnesses/deaths. One because the defendant knowingly distributed the safety equipment issued did not protect the plaintiff nor anyone else who used it on top of that there was not a proper warning for those who used the equipment. The withheld information held from the deceased cost him his life (with proper info they (family) could have made a sound choie of employment). TRIAL NOTES: The more 3M's knowledge is highlighted, the more it can counter the expectation that GM or American Minerals should have known about the proper usage of the masks. While 3M may be able to say they alerted the distributors who should have passed the warning down the chain that cannot be enough. Another approach should be taken to show how the label should appear on the mask. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 11 3M False Advertisements A major area of concern for some participants was the idea that 3M was selling this mask to large corporations and individual users who they knew would use them for protection against dangerous contaminants, such as asbestos. Olaolwa said (in her question) her main reason for supporting the plaintiff was, "I believe that 3M's marketing campaign as largely at fault in that they should have been more careful as to how they marketed the masks also." The consequences of 3M's choices and marketing likely caused harm to many individuals. TRIAL NOTES: While it may be very difficult to get into evidence, the more the risk of death to as many people as are part of this case, the less the actions of one person or one company are significant. If not, it would be possible to show how many companies bought these masks and how many people used them. This could help jurors draw their own conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 12 Other Issues Proper Adjustment of the Mask One issue with the 8710 mask was the proper adjustment of the mask to insure there was no leakage around the edges. While one or two participants were very concerned about the strap adjustments, very little else was said about any of this during deliberations. This likely was because the issue of whether or not the mask was worn was so strong that few were concerned about its adjustment. After the plaintiffpresentation, Margaret said the plaintiffs least convincing argument was, "One size doesn't fit all." Two Masks One major complication was there were two different masks with two different problems and different information available to consumers. This creates an impression that 3M was working to improve the mask while at the same time creating more responsibility on the employer and employee to insure safe usage. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 13 Allocation of Responsibility For this study, the allocation of responsibility section included an "other." While this will not be on the actual jury form, it was added to give more information about how much responsibility the jurors might assign to the employer(s) and why they would assign that amount. This aspect created some confusion in deliberations and even angered some participants that they could not assign fault to the employers. In fact, in debriefing, several participants told the moderator that Mr. Alderman should sue the company and had great difficulty accepting the moderator's statement that suing the employer was not possible. The following table shows participants' allocations of responsibility. Table V: Allocation ofResponsibility No. Name Alderman 3M Other 1 Joe 0% 75% 25% 3 Scott 10% 10% 80% 4 Chris 100% 0% 0% 5 Paul 50% 0% 50% 6 Dave 75% 0% 25% 7 Mary 30% 20% 50% 8 Margaret 25% 2% 73% 9 Olaolwa 10% 40% 50% 10 Brooke 0% 100% 0% 11 Cathy 50% 0% 50% 12 Anna 50% 0% 50% 13 Cyndi 80% 20% 0% 14 Latasha 0% 100% 0% 15 Mattie 16 Nicole 70% 20% 10% 17 Christina 0% 50% 50% 18 Pat 0% 0% 100% 19 Ariel 50% 0% 50% 20 Ryan 9% 50% 41% CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 14 Table VI: Reasonsfor Allocation ofResponsibility No. Name Why those percentages? Alderman had no idea the mask he was using did not protect from asbestos. 3M, GM, and American Mineral knew that this product did not work. 3M used false advertising with these 1 Joe face masks. Plaintiff was for times he took off or did not wear mask. 40% each for GM & AM for knowingly buying a faulty product and distributing it to workers who worked in harmful situations. 10% 3 Scott for 3M for false advertising about use of the 8500. 3M was using the don't ask don't tell unless asked. Mr. Alderman was not always wearing the 4 Chris mask properly. [He had 60/40 P/D and crossed out.] Alderman chose not to wear the mask in some situations. In others his employers put him in 5 Paul situations where the mask would not protect him. Other = GM/Mineral. Other = company. Mr. Alderman knew he should have never at any moment stopped wearing his mask and in his own words, he did, and the companies supplying the mask should have 6 Dave checked on the product and its safety for their workers more. Once Daryl is informed of his responsibility it lies on him to take care of himself. 3M also should be held accountable for distributing product knowing it was faulty. The company Mr. 7 Mary Alderman worked for also [responsible] for inspecting product and not going cheap route. The companies Mr. Alderman worked for are responsible for the masks he wore. The co's are 8 Margaret responsible for conditions and seeing things were done safely. It all started with 3M's marketing. They should not have led people to believe that these masks were all that safe. 1 think thefact that they waited until this decade to assign warnings on packages was especially careless. On the other hand, it should have been AM and GM's responsibility not to go with a mask that wasn't shown to work. Finally, if Alderman did indeed 9 Olaolwa take off his mask occasionally, he should share some guilt. 10 Brooke 11 Cathy 12 Anna 13 Cyndi 14 Latasha 15 Mattie 16 Nicole 17 Christina Responsibility goes back to the source. Because Mr. Alderman knew to wear the mask at all times and the companies should of made sure that they would protect their employees from the asbestos. Mr. Alderman chose on more than one occasion not to use the mask and that the companies did not look at the product more carefully and the companies did not enforce the use of the mask. 3M knowingly produced/distributed and sold masks that were not up to standards. This all for the love of money - greed. The 3M executives back then would not be around to see the results of this horrible business decision and the horrific consequences that "workers" suffered. Because 3M should have been more honest about their product so that people could have made a choice of whether or not to use the mask from 3M or use a different safety mask. Mr. Alderman knew about the dangers but decided to take the mask off then again, somebody should have said something to him about not wearing the mask that he had taken off. 3M should've been more cautious on the companies they chose to hire. 18 Pat 19 Ariel 20 Ryan That 3M is responsible for the mask of no protection. Well, 1 feel that Daryl should have been more cautious and aware of the dangers he was surrounded by and should have been more persistent in regards to his health even if he wasn't diagnosed until later in life. 1 also feel that the employers are more responsible for not providing asbestos protection masks that are certified with a stamp for approval. Mr. Alderman was a faithful employee. Regardless of years committed, he is not above rules, regulations, and instructions. He only did what he was allowed to do because of senority. 3M is showing a lot of concern for GM which makes it look like more than business (kind of like big brother taking up for little brother). CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 15 Damages The damage awards varied greatly in this study. Of course there were many zero dollar awards from defense jurors, but the other awards varied from$ 189,000.00 to over two billion dollars. The most common award (3) was in the three million dollar range. One interesting aspect was that in deliberations, many of the low or no damage individuals still expressed the opinion that Mr. Alderman should get something. Several felt American Minerals or General Motors should pay the full amount. The following table shows participants' damage awards. Table VII: Damages No. Name Past medical 1 Joe $120,000 3 Scott 4 Chris 5 Paul 6 Dave $0 7 Mary $120,000 8 Margaret $120,000 9 Olaolwa $120,000 10 Brooke All 11 Cathy $0 12 Anna $0 13 Cyndi $120,000 14 Latasha $1,020,000 15 Mattie $30,000 16 Nicole $120,000 17 Christina $120,000 18 Pat 19 Ariel 20 Ryan Full Pain and suffering $1,500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $50,000 $17,000 $60,000 Full Mental anguish $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $170,000 $120,000 $20,000 $0 Full Loss of society $880,000 $0 $500,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $170,000 $125,000 $17,000 $2,000,000,000 Full Other $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $180,000 $0 $15,000 $800,000 $0 TOTAL award $4,000,000 $0 $1,120,000 $720,000 $3,120,000 All medical $0 $0 $3,120,000 $3,040,000 $325,000 $189,000 $2,000,980,000 Full TRIAL NOTES: These variations in the damage awards would indicate there is not a solid anchor for the damages. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 16 Jury Selection An analysis was done to determine what, if any, correlation existed between the responses on the supplement juror questionnaire/screener and the verdicts awarded by the mock jurors. This analysis can be found in Appendix B. Those who had worn a mask were slightly more likely to give high damage awards. Those who favored caps on damage awards were more likely to be no or low damage jurors. The interesting result was how little correlation there was. Usually there are a few questions that show a high correlation between juror responses and juror verdicts. NOTE: One note should be made about this result. Since the group was a temp service recruit there were no professionals, business owners, etc. The homogeneity of the group may, in part, account for little differentiation. For example, the analysis by gender showed that about half the male participants' awarded no or low damages and about halve awarded high damages Table VIII: Award by Gender Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Sex Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 17 One interesting result was that there were just three people who indicated they would personally have trouble suing a company over a defective product. This is usually a sign of a defense orientation or, at least low damage awards. In this case however, all three of the "yes" participants awarded damages, with two of them in the over one million dollar category. Table IX: Award by "Wouldyou have a hard time suing companyfor a defective product?" Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over $1M Hard time suing company for product? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes This lack of correlation was also present when asked about non-economic or mental anguish damages. Of those who said they could not award mental anguish damages, one was low, one middle, and one high. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 18 Table X: Award by 'Couldyou award moneyfor mental anguish?" Award Category $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over $1M Over $1M Over $1M Over $1M Mental anguish? No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Those who had worn a mask were slightly more likely to be high on damage awards. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 19 Table XI: Award by "Haveyou ever worn a face mask or respirator?" Award Category 46. Ever worn facemask or respirator? Award Category $0 to $500,000 Yes $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Yes $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 No $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Yes $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 No $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 No $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 No $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 No $500,000 to $1M $0 to $500,000 No Over$lM $0 to $500,000 No Over$lM $0 to $500,000 Yes $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M No $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Yes $0 to $500,000 Over$lM No $0 to $500,000 Over$lM No $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Yes Over$lM Over$lM Yes Over$lM Over$lM Yes Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM 46. Ever worn facemask or respirator? No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes One interesting pattern regarded whether the participant had formed any opinions about the effectiveness of the mask. Four had formed an opinion about the mask; two found in favor of the defendant and two found for the plaintiff. They were also split on money. One respondent didn't explain why she formed her opinion, but the two who felt the masks were important found for defense. The one who thought she wore an effective mask found for plaintiff. This will be an issue to explore in Voir dire. Table XII: Opinions about Mask Effectiveness and Verdicts Name 77. Have you formed any opinions about effectiveness of masks? If yes, explain 1 FIND IN FAVOR OF: It's very, very important to Dave Yes wear. Defendant Mary Yes Plaintiff If used properly, they Brooke Yes protect. Defendant Christina Yes 1 wear an effective mask. Plaintiff Alderman 3M Other 75% 0% 25% 30% 20% 50% 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 50% CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 20 Two responses followed the expected pattern - one was support for limits or caps on lawsuits and the second was the belief that there are too many lawsuits in Madison County. While there were some exceptions, this response seemed to have the highest correlation. Table XIII: Award by Limits Award Category 65. What do you think about the idea of placing limits on amount juries can award? $0 to $500,000 Tend to disagree $0 to $500,000 Tend to agree $0 to $500,000 Tend to agree $0to $500,000 Strongly disagree $0 to $500,000 Tend to agree $0 to $500,000 Tend to agree $0 to $500,000 Tend to disagree $0 to $500,000 Strongly agree $0 to $500,000 Tend to disagree $0 to $500,000 Tend to agree $0 to $500,000 Tend to agree $500,000 to $1M Tend to disagree $500,000 to $1M Strongly disagree Over $1M Tend to disagree Over $1M Tend to agree Over$lM Strongly disagree Over $1M Tend to agree Over $1M Strongly disagree Over$lM Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 . $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over $1M 65. What do you think about the idea of placing limits on amount juries can award? Strongly agree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Tend to disagree Tend to disagree Tend to disagree Tend to disagree CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 21 Table XIV: Award by "There are too many lawsuits filed here in Madison County." Award Category 66. Too many lawsuits in Madison County. Award Category 66. Too many lawsuits in Madison County. $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 1 $0 to $500,000 4 Over $1M 1 $0 to $500,000 6 Over $1M 2 $0 to $500,000 7 $0 to $500,000 3 $0 to $500,000 6 $0 to $500,000 3 $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 1 $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 3 $0 to $500,000 4 $0 to $500,000 7 Over$lM 4 $0 to $500,000 3 Over$lM 4 $500,000 to $1M 7 Over $1M 5 $500,000 to $1M $0 to $500,000 6 Over$lM 4 $0 to $500,000 6 Over$lM 2 $0 to $500,000 7 Over$lM 5 $0 to $500,000 7 Over$lM 4 $500,000 to $1M 7 Over$lM 7 Over $1M 7 Over$lM 1 $500,000 to $1M Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree In fact, the "too many lawsuits" tended to follow a pattern. While there were some outliers as there are in almost all such cases, the tendency was generally the more they felt there were too many lawsuits, the less money they tended to award. This pattern could reflect a higher level of awareness or agreement with the extensive tort reform movement in Madison County. Two people who strongly agreed with this statement gave significant money and one awarded in excess of one million dollars. This also follows a pattern seen in other cases and studies where some jurors most convinced of problems with lawsuits are often the best on damages when convinced the lawsuit "is not one of those lawsuits." CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 22 Appendix: Questionnaire Data CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT No. Name Age Sex Education Area of study Job status List all jobs Some 1 Joe 20 Male college Nursing Part time LGC, Express, Waltons catering 3 Scott 23 Male High school Part time Pizza, funeral home, Aisin MFG USA, US Army Some 4 Chris 32 Male college Bach/science Unemployed Forklift driver, insurance inspector Network 5 Paul 19 Male Some Admin and college Design Busser at restaurant, computer Unemployed tech. 6 Dave 31 Male College grad Night clubs, bartending, hustler Unemployed club, painters union Bartender, fast food, assembly 7 Mary College [Blank] Female grad Unemployed line, document control, implement new software, assist admin. 8 Margaret High 60 Female school Part time Admin asst, legal secy, secy. 9 Olaolwa 26 Male Some Civil college engineer Full time EO's Express (campus eatery), Vector Marketing, Morris Univ. Center, IL Dept, of Transportation. 10 Brooke Some General 24 Female college studies Part time Chef, server, hostess, bartender, admin asst, mgr. 11 Cathy 39 Female GED None Part time Express, bartending, different labor jobs. 12 Anna Some 41 Female college Business Part time Housekeeping, donut mgr, customer service, temp, bartend Continuing 13 Cyndi Some 54 Female college education for employment Part time Nurse aid, medical secy, bartend/waitress, legal secy, HR coordinator, admin asst. 14 Latasha High 30 Female school Cosmetology Part time Nail specialist, several staffing co's. High 15 Mattie 45 Female school Part time Nursing, daycare, Food, hotel 16 Nicole Less than 20 Female HS Unemployed Fast food 17 Christina Some General 29 Female college studies Full time Production work (manufacturing), construction, asbestos work. High 18 Pat [Blank] Female school Part time Admin asst, secy, etc. 19 Ariel Some 27 Female college Part time Fast food, temp agencies, security, BRI, USF, Edwardsville Nursing & Rehab. Vehicle, APAC, Hardees, D. Don & 20 Ryan 32 Male Some college Contractor Unemployed Sons, Strom Engrg, Warehouse, Army, owner detail shop, forklift driver, remodel houses. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 24 Name Occupation Walton's Catering, Joe Express Employment Scott Chris Paul Military Unemployed/student Unemployed Dave Mary Margaret Unemployed Unemployed Adm. Asst. Olaolwa Brooke Student Self employed, part time jobs. Cathy Anna Labor Express Cyndi Latasha Clerical/secretary Express Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Stocking, packing Unemployed Manufacturing Ariel Ryan Security officer Self employed, looking for work. Job Duties Cook, warehouse work Nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological warfare None NA Unemployed Just taking courses, studying. Calls, customer service, sales Fill orders, drive forklift. Temp agency in clerical Warehouse work Working on assembly line packing products. Assembly line work Phones, secy stuff Patrol and secure school in E. St. Louis area. Bid on jobs construction Supervisory duties Yes, 10 Yes, 5-7 Yes, 10 Yes, 2 Yes, 20 girls Yes, 12 No No Yes, 6 Yes, 5-7 Yes, 8 No Yes, 3 No No Yes, 15 Yes, 2 Yes, 24 Yes, 8 Employer Walton's Catering, Ken Walton. Express Employment, Steve Ferguson US Army None NA None NA Express USML Mary Kay Express Express Express Express Express Heimos Produce Express NA Time at current employer Express 1 mo; Walton's 5 years 6.5 NA Less than a year. 1 2 2 2 wks 1 3 New job 6 11/2 mos CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 25 Name Joe Scott Chris Military background No Yes, US Army No Ever worked for 3M? No No No Hard time suing company for product? No No No Spouse Occupation NA NA Paul Dave No No Mary No Margaret No Olaolwa No Brooke Cathy No No No Unsure No No Unsure No No No No Yes, 1 really would need more info. Yes, If someone were hurt. No No No NA NA NA NA NA Navy (GM2), business owner (Little Caesars) NA Anna No Cyndi Latasha Mattie No No No Nicole No Christina No No No No No No No No No No No No No Ryerson Steel Band Welider Construction laborer, McGrath Construction NA NA Shift manager White Castle NA Pat No No No Ariel Ryan No No Yes, Army Reserve No No Yes, The cause and effect how it impacts thinking process. NA Wife in school full time pursuing BA in accounting. Mother Occupation Self employed Central Christian Church, Admin. Hospice service Hod carrier Father Occupation DHL Honey-Do Co. owner/handyman Military Finance manager, Saturn of South Country Laborer Nurse Shell, pipefitter Cook Principal WTC international trade Cook Exc Housekeeper at hospital Welder Professor at SIUE Limo/taxi driver Airforce, military Field supervisor construction Homemaker, bartender Never worked Homemaker Cement finisher foreman Deceased Cook Homemaker Laborer Body shop owner RN Truck driver Granite City Steel Body shop owner Clayton County Police Nurse Fire fighter CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 26 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 16. Children Occupations None NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Admin Asst. Not grown Nurse aid NA NA NA Children employers? Siemans Water Technology St. Mary's Hospital Ever been self employed? No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Type of business. Insurance inspections Computer repair Painting Mary Kay Nail specialist Security Detail shop Ever been union member? No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No Which one? Bricklayers Local 8, Painters Union 120 1976-79 through Wood River Hospital ASME. Held any position? Yes NO CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 27 Name Joe Scott 19. Contribute Club/organization to membership? charities? If yes, list. No Metro Community Church NO No Volunteer work? Yes If yes, list. Homecomings 22. Hobbies Playing soccer, collecting soccer jerseys Music, art, woodwork, No extreme sports Chris No No No Musical, school Paul No Dave No No No Anyone 1 see and Yes can. No Computers, networking, biking, camping, hiking My family, working out. Mary None Margaret NA No No Food Yes pantries No Track, softball, cleaning Sudoku, Reading Olaolwa National Society of Black Engineers Charitable Ash Foundation, NCCS - Nat'l Yes Occasional donation to Goodwill Yes Occasional volunteer work on campus. Movies, books, exercise Brooke Children's Cancer Society Yes Mary Kay Yes Eden Village Soccer, my son, art, Nursing Home reading, travel Cathy None Yes Police No Pool, horseshoes, crafts Anna NA No No Camping, swimming Salvation Cyndi NA Army, Disabled Yes Vets No Reading, writing, gardening, music, fishing, walking Latasha No No No Reading Mattie No No No Singing, talking to people, listen to music. Nicole No No Christina NA No No Reading Pat Ariel St. Stevens, Bingo No Yes Ryan NA No United Way Yes Yes Yes Bingo, St. Stevens Venice Township Coalition of Concerned Citizens, Summer Youth Program Fishing, gardening for plants. Reading, writing, singing, dancing Church, basketball, family CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 28 Name Joe Radio stations 107.7, 105.7 TV Stations CNN Scott Chris Paul Dave NA 105.7 90/7 105.7, 106.5 CNN, CBS, MSNBC CNN Internet only Comedy Central, John Stewart Show, Coldern Report Mary Margaret Olaolwa Soft rock 106.5 105.7, 94.7 Mostly local ABC Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Any 92.3 106.5 Arch Classic, vintage rock, Christian All FOX, ABC FOX CNN, MSNBC Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel 107.7 1490, 1600 Country 107.7 103.3 All None FOX FOX ABC NBC FOX, ABC Ryan 1600am, CNN, NBC, 95.5pm CBS Magazines None Men's Health, Health NA None Still Smoker? smoke? Packs per day? If no, when did you quit? Tried to stop? Ever read warning on label? Yes Yes 1/2 Once NO Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes 1 No Once Yes 3 Yes Yes None Yes No Woman's Health Yes No NA Yes Yes 1 10 years ago Yes Once Yes 10 Yes No Shape, 4 Applause Yes Yes cigs/day None Yes Yes 1 Yes No Yes 2 Yes None Yes Yes 1/2 No Yes Newsweek, Archeology Yes None Yes None NA NA No Yes No Yes Yes NA Yes No 1/4 No No Yes 1/2 No Yes 3 Yes 1 No 1980 4 mos ago year after military Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes Yes CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 29 Name Ever employed in the following? Joe Scott Chris Own business, maintenance/repair, auto Building, Manufacturing, Own business, Maintenance ALL but social work Paul Dave Mary Manufacturing, Steel mills, Own business Law, Asbestos, Building, Envir Reg, Steel mills, Own business, workplace safety Building, Manufacturing, Insulation, Steel mills, maintenance, workplace safety Law, Asbestos, Building, Environmental, Steel mills, own business, auto, social work, Margaret workplace safety Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Building, Engineering, environmental regs, social work All but asbestos and insulation. Steel mills, maintenance, auto Building, own business Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Law, building, environmental, manufacturing, insulation, insurance, own business, workplace safety Asbestos, building, environmental, insurance, steel mills, own business, safety products, auto None Auto Asbestos, building, environmental, manufacturing, steel mills Owning business, maintenance, auto, workplace safety. Ariel Ryan Building, own business, maintenance, safety products, workplace safety Building, engineering, manufacturing, steel mills, own business, maintenance, social work. Describe. Grandparents own their own business, uncles did maintenance and mechanics. Father and 1 in all of above. Cousin in manufacturing, grandfather worked in steel mill, 1 own small computer repair business. 1 worked for an atty, my brother worked at refinery and was around asbestos. My sister ran her own business, my brother worked in oil safety dept. I've done engineering internships including work on construction site and for an environmental firm. I've also dealt with social workers. Father resale shop. 1 worked for attys, father and husband in construction and work with insulation. Husband is a safety man at job to ensure OSHA. Sister owned a bar. Aunts, uncles, cousins Father and brother auto mechanics. 1 have an asbestos license, trained in asbestos work. Building and construction my uncle owns construction business, 1 ran security co, maint and repair 1 worked for my uncle. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 30 Name Joe 29. Specialized training: Medicine? No Explain. Scott Chris Paul Yes No No Dave Yes Cousin is a nurse, aunt nurse, uncle fireman. Mary No Margaret No Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Yes No No No Cyndi Yes 1 have a cousin in England who's doing his medical residency. 1 worked in hospitals for 25+ years as secy and worked some on patient floors in clerical capacity. Worked in a cardiology lab for EMS coordinator. Latasha Both Mattie No Nicole Christina Pat Yes No No Ariel Yes Kind of, my son is handicap and requires special care. Aunt C.N.A. and sick son. My friend is an RN Ryan Yes 1 Wife's doctor. 30. Specialized training: Nursing? No 1 have combat life saver course for the military. No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Both Yes No No No Yes Yes Explain. Aunt and cousin is a nurse. Mom was an LPN. Because of my son, 1 have a little knowledge of nursing. My daughter My friend is an RN. Mother and mother-in law RN's. 31. Specialized training: Toxicology? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 31 Name Joe 32. Specialized training: Industrial Hygiene? No 33. Specialized training: Public Health? No 34. Specialized training: Epidemiology? No 35. Ever worked around chemicals? No What kinds? Health Health problems? concerns? Explain. Scott No No No Chris No No No Nerve Al the agents, proper Yes, 1 have nuclear war materials No instructio n and No warnings. Yes, 1 have Petroleum No No Paul NO No No No Dave No No No Yes, 1 have Paints and thinners. No No Mary No No No [Blank] Margaret No No No No Olaolwa No No No Just some Don't Yes, 1 lab stuff rememb have in school. No No er Brooke No No No No Cathy No Anna No No Yes, Mother, hospital. No No Yes, 1 have Hazards. No No None Yes, 1 have Medical drugs No No Cyndi No No No No Latasha No No No No Mattie No No No No Nicole No Christina No No Yes, 1 have asbestos public health card. No No No Yes, 1 have Asbestos containing materials. No No Pat No No No No Ariel Yes No No Ryan No No No Yes, 1 have Cleaning No No Safety first, be alert, follow instructio [Blank] Asbestos No ns to the letter. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 32 Name Joe Scott Chris 36. Ever suffered from disease caused by exposure to hazardous substance in workplace? No NO Yes, someone close Grandfather, Granite City Steel worker, parts cleaner without gloves. Paul Dave No No Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan No Yes, someone close No No No No No No No No No No No No Environmental regulations are: About right About right About right Not tough enough Environment ought to be valued above economy. Not tough enough About right - I'm not that informed. 1 would have to read up on the matter. About right About right About right About right About right Not tough enough About right About right About right About right About right Not tough enough About right Should there be more govt regulation of industrial products? No change needed No change needed No change needed Should be less regulation. Should be less regulation. [Blank] Should be more regulation Should be more regulation No change needed No change needed No change needed Should be more regulation Should be more regulation Should be more regulation No change needed No change needed Should be more regulation No change needed Should be more regulation CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 33 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan Ever worked with asbestos? If yes, explain. No No No 40. Are govt safety regulations important? Agree Strongly agree Agree Explain. If we didn't have them people would be getting hurt a lot more. Safety regulations are vital to protect everyone. Because some companies wouldn't protect others. No Yes, 1 have No Yes, friend/family has No No Spraying underground tunnels. Agree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Father, refinery. Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Some regulation is necessary. Less government in anything is better. It's the person's responsibility for their own safety. Who else would care? The company's out to make money? In and of ourselves, we are prone to push, even break, boundaries. Very important, many people get hurt. No Agree Strongly No agree Someone needs to be in charge. However, worked with an atty who was involved in asbestos Need continuity for the safety of No abatement. Agree citizens. Without regulations people could No Agree get harmed. Strongly No agree No Agree Yes, 1 have Agree No Agree No Yes, 1 have Working in condemned building in demolition jobs. Agree Agree Without regulations people would continue to pollute the earth and not think twice about what they are causing. 41. Do you think our system of lawsuits gives an unfair advantage to large corps? Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 34 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 42. Under the law, corps and individuals are treated as equal "person." Is this far? Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Medical expenses? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lost wages? Unsure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mental anguish? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Pain and suffering? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Psychiatric care? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Punitive damages? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Explain if no. People cause their own mental anguish. Because a mental anguish is considered an excuse. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 35 Name Joe Any concerns about health risks as a result of home or work location? No Scott No Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Yes No No Yes Yes Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Yes Yes No No Explain. 1 try to be as healthy as possible. The air quality in my town is poor. Much pollution. Close to refinery. Lots of construction has been done around my neighborhood. 1 live close to Granite City. Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole No No Yes No Christina Pat Ariel Ryan No Yes No No Air we live on. Ever worked with harmful substances? No If yes, explain. Yes Military Yes Petroleum off loader. No Yes Me, paints and thinners. No Yes Spouse, Viet Nam, Agent Orange 1 have worked with just basic household Yes cleaning products. No No No Uncle was in Vietnam - has major health issues due to agent orange since he was in his mid 30's. Govt should have had safety protocol in place for those who served in those types of military Yes operations. No No No Asbestos, 1 was well protected and had a Yes Wilson mask on. No No Yes Yes, at Chemcto Plant that's shut down. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 36 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 46. Ever worn facemask or respirator? No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes If yes, explain. Military gas mask. It protected me fine. Unsure. Ethyl petroleum, line cleaning, well protected. Asbestos Don't know who manufactured it but it worked well. Wore one when sanding wall and for spray painting furniture. Also wear when fertilizing lawn. We use many chemicals at nail salons and wear a mask for protection. A Wilson respiratorwas what 1 sued, and a North respirator. 1 used a face mask to protect me from inhaling fumes to an abandoned school, I'm not sure who made the mask but it was very helpful. 47. Ever read/participated in studies re: chemical or environmental hazards? NO No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No if yes, explain. Industry tends to export waste and waste generation to third world countries. Stay away. Just about the various laws that govern the use of these chemicals. 1 took an asbestos class at SSS in St. Louis. The chemicals are always toxic. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 37 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 48. Suffering from any health problems? If yes, explain. 49. Suffer from any respiratory problems? Explain. No No No No No Yes, someone close. Yes, 1 am Yes, someone close. Hip problems My dad recently underwent a colonoscopy. Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes, someone close. No My mother she has breaching problems copd. Yes Yes No Brother and sister have asthma. Nephew, asthma. My sisters. My mother. Yes, someone close. Husband has asthma Yes Yes, someone close. No My son. Yes No No Yes No No No No No No My husband has asthma. Uncle has copdl emphysema s result of agent orange. My son has asthma, bronchitis all the time. Mom has asthma and dad has bronchitis. 50. How has experience affected them/you? Always have to take medicine before sports so that made me responsible when 1 talk them to games and practice. 51. Ever had cancer? Yes No Yes No No Becoming limited to normal activities. NA Yes Yes They are more careful with exercise. No Yes Because 1 worry about her everyday. Husband does inhalers 2x/day. Always wears good respirators while working in an area of construction that would be harmful to inhale. My uncle is very ill, cannot walk without oxygen. My son has a lot of infections and breathing problems. 1 have learned a lot because of him. No Yes Yes Yes No Doesn't. NA NA Yes No Yes Yes CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 38 Name Joe Scott Chris 51. Ever had cancer? Yes No Yes If yes, explain. Friends of mother died of breast cancer. Lung and colon. Paul Dave Mary No No Yes Margaret Yes Olaolwa No Brooke Cathy Anna Yes No Yes Cyndi Yes Latasha Mattie Yes No Nicole Christina Pat Yes No Yes Ariel Ryan Yes Lung Father and brother, lung cancer; 3 aunts, cancer. Breast cancer (aunts, grandmother). Friend, breast. My husband - testicular cancer. Myself - ovarian, mother breast. My brother-in-law just got over Hoshkins Lymphoma. My mom, lymph nodes 7-10. My uncle died from terminal stomach cancer. 52. Ever been care giver to cancer patient? 53. Current court case pending? if yes, explain. No NO No No No No No Yes No No No No Speeding ticket, currently on probation. Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No 1 have a moving violation in MD. Denying visitation from the non custodial parent. Traffic. Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No 54. Anyone ever filed claim against you? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 39 Name Joe Scott Chris 55. Ever been sued? No No No Paul Dave Mary No No No Margaret No Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina No No No No No No No No Yes, 1 sued a woman because she ran into my car. Pat Ariel Ryan No Yes, Not being paid for the overtime we work for and that was Casey's General Store and Kelly's Services. 56. Ever sued anyone? No No No Yes, Former employer was in car crash. No No Yes, Worked for atty, my brother's spouse sued in his death. Yes, My dad was in an accident several years ago where he tried to get representation. No No No No No No No No No No 57. Ever involved in a lawsuit? No Yes, Military court martial. No No No No No No No Yes, Over car acc 8 years ago. No No No No No No Yes, 1 went to court for my apartment 1 was living in because the manager came into my house when 1 was gone and went through my stuff and took my things. No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 40 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 58. Could have sued, but didn't? No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes If yes, explain. 1 don't find it necessary to sue, waste of time and money. Friend was in car crash. Too much trouble. 1 fell down. My mother had foot surgery. Surgeon set 2 toes crooked. Never healed right, causing pain and she got older could hardly walk on that foot. My friend was in a car accident and the damage to her car was minimal but she decided the time wasn't worth the trouble. 59. Any feelings about court system? No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No Explain. Americans are too litigious and often use the system to take advantage of people. The government and the justice system is screwed up. Many people take advantage. Court system is too bureaucratic - everything takes too long. 60. Ever served as criminal juror? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 61. Ever served as civil juror? No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 41 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 62. Ever had training as to how to answer voir dire questions? 63. How do you feel about jury awards in Madison County? No No opinion No No opinion No No opinion No No opinion No No opinion No About right No Too high No No opinion No No opinion No About right No No opinion No No opinion No About right No About right No No opinion No No opinion No About right No No opinion Explain. 1 don't live in Madison County. 1 really need more info. Too many lawsuits come here for trial. 1 have no experience with the question asked. 64. Ever sustained serious injuries as a result of an accident? Explain. No No No No No No No No No Yes Car acc, went through windshield. Yes Father fell at Lowes. No No No My mom and 1 both have herniated disks in our back due to Yes car accident. No My dad was hit walking through Home Depot and was hit with a Yes fork lift and knocked down. 1 was in a car accident that left me Yes immobile for 7 months. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 42 Name Joe 65. What do you think about the idea of placing limits on amount juries can award? Tend to disagree Scott Chris Tend to disagree Tend to agree Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Tend to agree Strongly disagree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Tend to agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Tend to agree Strongly agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Tend to agree Ariel Ryan Tend to agree Explain. It's not up to the juries. Shouldn't be a limit. The accident/situation should determine amount as well as persons condition. Some awards are too high. A cap or percentage system might make the system more fair. It's the court's rules. Every injury can't have a single price on it. Recession. It's hard to say what's owed until all has been explained. Some circumstances call for limitations on monetary awards. 66. Too many lawsuits in Madison County. People outside Madison County shouldn't file lawsuits in Madison County. Lawsuits cost us too much money. Jury awards are too high. People often target large corporations. 4 4 45 4 4 4 64 4 4 44 6 2 45 7 1 74 2 4 24 7 4 74 5 2 44 6 5 63 4 4 64 4 1 32 4 4 63 7 3 15 1 1 11 3 3 33 1 3 44 7 1 77 3 3 42 6 4 2 7 3 3 2 4 5 3 4 7 1 3 4 4 5 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 43 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul 67. Every illness has a readily identifiable cause. Strongly disagree Undecided Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Dave Strongly agree Mary Disagree Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Agree Agree Disagree Agree Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree It's wrong for states to establish limits. Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly agree Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Agree Disagree People often exaggerate their injuries. Threat of large damages is best way to ensure corps will meet safety standards. Agree Agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly Strongly agree agree Agree Undecided Strongly agree Agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Undecided Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree Undecided Agree Agree Most co's work hard to ensure employees are protected. Agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree [Blank] Disagree Disagree Undecided Disagree Disagree In industrial settings, it's routine for workers not to use all safety equipment. Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Strongly agree Agree CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 44 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Warning labels are generally good enough. Agree Disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Agree Warning labels are never as specific as they should be. Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Manufacturers only put warning labels on products when forced to. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree Agree Disagree Margaret Undecided Disagree Olaolwa Agree Disagree Agree [Blank] Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Undecided Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree [Blank] Disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly disagree Co's frequently hide info from public about potential dangers. Corps that have done nothing wrong are often sued anyway. Most CO'S will not market products unless sure they're safe. Most personal injury lawsuits are frivolous. Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Undecided Strongly agree Undecided Strongly agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree [Blank] Disagree Undecided [Blank] Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Undecided Strongly disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Agree Undecided Undecided Strongly disagree Undecided Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Undecided Disagree Agree Undecided CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 45 Name Joe Scott Chris People are too ready to sue. Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Paul Dave Agree Strongly agree Mary Agree Margaret Agree Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Undecided Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Agree Agree Agree Strongly agree Christina Undecided Pat Agree Ariel Strongly agree Ryan Undecided Co's have legal obligation to disclose everything. Agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree 68. Explain what you know of asbestos. Can cause lung disease and many health problems. It was used in insulation, it also can cause fatal diseases. Can cause lung disease and cancer. Asbestos is a mineral that was long used in insulation. Small strands asbestos can unknowingly be inhaled and cause health problems. It will kill you over a period of exposure. It was used as an insulator in buildings for years before finding out it is harmful to people (if breathed in). Not sure of all the effects. It's harmful to breathe, it's in walls, ceilings, brake pads. 1 know that it was used in many buildings until roughly the 1950's or 60's, when it was shown to be carcinogenic. It can kill you! Undecided Don't know Agree Strongly agree Nothing. It's a carcinogen that should have never been used around humans. Technology is advanced enough they could have found something else money is always the root of evil. Agree They cause illness. Undecided Agree Undecided [Blank] Strongly agree Undecided 1 don't. An asbestos containing material can be harmful to the lungs. It causes mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer. It's a white powdery substance. 1 have it in my basement and the people that own the house wont have it removed and 1 don't like it, and 1 also have an animal. That it's a harmful thing and it can cause debilitating side affects if exposed. It's usually found in vacant buildings or structures. Also, it's harmful to breath in. Strong chemical that can kill you over a period of time if you don't take necessary precautions to protect yourself 69. Any knowledge of mesothelioma? Ever heard any news, etc about asbestos? No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 46 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary 71. Ever worked around asbestos? No Yes No No Yes Unsure If yes, explain. Near insulation. Asbestos can be anywhere. Me; painting tunnels. Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Yes No No No No Cyndi Latasha Yes No Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan Yes No Yes No No No My brother, refinery. My husband works construction and has worked around, however, he wears prale(???). A friend at a high school. 1 have. 72. Do you or anyone you know might have asbestos related disease? No 73. Ever screened or tested for asbestos related injury? NO 74. Ever involved in lawsuits due to asbestos? No 75. Ever attended meetings about lawsuits and asbestos? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes, My No Yes brother No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 47 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul 76. What do you think of people who sue makers of asbestos containing products? It needs to be proven. Yes If they are legitimately sick 1 see no problem. Dave Good for them, if it's true. Mary Margaret Olaolwa It feel it should be investigated before making any decisions. They should sue. Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan They have the right to do so. Talk to an att. To see what they should do. Don't have opinion. Depends on the situation. They knew what job they ha, when they got into it. Wrong it's not the makers fault. 77. Based on what you've read/heard, have you formed any opinions about effectiveness of masks? If yes, explain No No No No It's very, very important Yes to wear. Yes No No If used properly, they Yes protect. No No No No No No 1 wear an effective Yes mask. No No No 78. Seen/heard anything about lawsuits involving disposable respirators? NO No No No No Yes, That if people use mask they will help you. No No No No No No No No No No No No No 79. Any opinions about mask respirators that would make you favor one side? No No No Explain. 1 don't know enough information. If they didn't use a respirator they had no reason to sue. No Companies need to supply new filters for Yes their masks regularly. These days things are Yes tested and proven. No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 48 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 80. Asbestos 1=very safe; 10=very dangerous 8 6 7 81. Any reason making it difficult for you to award damages? No reasons. No No 82. Do you suffer from physical disability? NO Yes, Slight hearing difficulties from explosions. No 7 No No, if they deserve 10 it. No No 10 No No 10 9 Not at 10 all. 8 5 None. 10 No 10 No 5 10 No 10 No 10 No No No No No No No No No No No 10 No 9 No No No 83. Currently taking meds? 84. Feelings about serving. No 1 would have mixed feelings. No 1 would prefer not to serve. No Wouldn't mind. 1 think being chosen for a criminal case would be interesting and fulfilling however, a civil No case seems to be less substantial. No No Yes, Zoloft, short attention span sometimes. No Happy 1 find it very interesting and would enjoy doing it. Undecided. Not sure. No They pay too little, hassle. No OK Would love it. Always willing to learn more No about the laws. No Fine. It will be very difficult when it comes to make No a decision, because everyone thinks different. No 1 would like it because 1 like to argue. No 1 wouldn't mind as long as 1 got paid for it. No It would be ok there are no strong feelings just the fact that maybe 1 could make a No difference. No Good. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 49 Name Joe Scott Chris 85. Trial could last 2 1/2 weeks, problematic? Yes, working would be limited, not enough money to pay bills. No No 86. Compelling personal reasons... 87. In group discussions 1 am: Somewhat No talkative Somewhat No talkative Somewhat No talkative 88. Political view Middle of road Middle of road Middle of road Paul No Dave No Mary No Margaret Yes, hip problem. It may interfere with Olaolwa my coursework. No No No No No Very talkative Somewhat talkative Somewhat talkative Not very talkative Somewhat talkative Middle of road Conservative Conservative Conservative Middle of road Brooke No Cathy None Anna None. No Very talkative Liberal Somewhat No talkative Liberal Somewhat No talkative Middle of road Cyndi Latasha No No Very talkative Conservative Somewhat No talkative Conservative Mattie Very conservative Nicole No No Very talkative Middle of road Christina No Pat No Ariel No Ryan No No Very talkative Middle of road Somewhat No talkative Conservative Not very No talkative Middle of road Somewhat No talkative Liberal 89. Live experiences last 5 years. Somewhat positive Extremely positive Extremely positive Somewhat positive Somewhat negative Extremely positive Somewhat positive Somewhat negative Extremely positive Somewhat positive Extremely positive Somewhat negative Extremely positive Somewhat positive Somewhat positive Somewhat positive Somewhat positive Somewhat positive Extremely positive CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 50 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary 90. Have experienced in past 5 years. Loss of employment Loss of employment, serious financial hardship Loss of employment, serious financial hardship, victim of crime Loss of employment Loss of employment, serious financial hardship, victim of crime Loss of employment Margaret Loss of employment Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Loss of employment Serious financial hardship, serious injury/illness, been victim of crime. Serious financial hardship Loss of employment Cyndi Latasha Mattie Loss of employment, serious financial hardship, illness Loss of employment, serious financial hardship, illness Loss of employment Nicole Loss of employment Christina Loss of employment Pat Ariel Ryan NA Loss of employment, serious financial hardship, illness, victim of crime. Loss of employment, serious financial hardship, victim of crime 91. Anything court should know? NA Nothing I'm aware of. None Victim of an attack, attempted rape, car stolen. No No NA No 92. Like to serve on jury? Yes Yes No [Blank] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Explain. Think it would be an experience. Not interested. 1 do not know what the case is. It would be an event. Don't want to serve more than a few days. 1 see nothing thus far that could hinder me. I'm here! Sounds interesting. 1 am very interested in the law. 1 would like to because this is a hard case and people might not think the way 1 do. I'm getting paid for this. To learn more how people think -1 listen then say how 1 feel. If I'm picked it's fine but if not that's fine as well. 1 don't have respect of person or bias on gender or race. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 51 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 93. Seen/heard any advertising regarding lawyers/laws uits? NO No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No What did you see? Brown and Cooper, etc. TV promos Just billboard/TV ads Commercials What did it mean to you? The business of lawsuits Nothing. Not much. They were available. 94. Seen/heard advertising regarding business, etc.? No No No No No No No Yes, just commercials. Not much. No No No No No No No No No 95. Familiar with how lawyers get paid? No No Yes What do you know? They get a percentage of the award. No Yes Fair. They get paid if Yes they win. It's usually 1/3 Yes of award. No No No No No No No If you win you get paid, if you lose you still Yes get something! No No How do you feel about that? That's ok. Fair. They deserve most of it. Agree Name Olaolwa 96. Anything court should know? Yes, 1 have aspergers. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 52 Name Who should win? Joe Completely undecided Scott Chris Paul Dave Completely undecided Defendant probably Completely undecided Completely undecided Mary Completely undecided Margaret Completely undecided Olaolwa Completely undecided Brooke Cathy Plaintiff probably Completely undecided Anna Completely undecided Cyndi Latasha Mattie Completely undecided Completely undecided Completely undecided Nicole Defendant probably Christina All Pat Defendant probably Ariel Ryan Completely undecided Completely undecided Why? 1 haven't heard enough evidence to choose one side over the other. 1 won't and can't base my decision off sympathy. There is still a possibility that neither are at fault. 1 want to know all the facts before decision is made. It's the person's responsibility to wear protective gear. The evidence has not yet been presented. 1 need to know more info to decide. I'm neutral. No way to form an objective opinion at this point. Want to hear more facts. 1 haven't heard anything. Not enough evidence has been presented for me to decide one way or the other. 1 feel that although Mr. Cook is the better lawyer and a smooth talker, he doesn't care about this case. He feels he will have to compensate the family no matter what. So his focus is awarding the family with as little compensation as possible. Because 1 need to hear both sides of the case. Have not heard what exactly is going on. Was he not doing what he was told or did he not get told what to do. Need more info, however, plaintiff worked when product wasn't known to cause severe harm and possibly safety equip was not state of the art as it is now. Again, need to know more info, i.e., safety equipment, OSHA regs at that time, plaintiffs health before beginning employment and what were his job responsibilities and did mgmt enforce wearing personal protective equip, i don't believe they knew how dangerous asbestos was. Should have been proactive in that respect. 1 need to hear more in the case to decide. 1 need more time on this case. 1 believe the defendant should win because he was making masks and how could he get that from making masks. 1 believe he was doing something else like painting or something. 1 would say the plaintiff should be awarded the money. Feel he is more caring about the case and the problem - it's not about money, it's persons life. I'm completely undecided due to the fact that we still don't know who was actually at fault or negligent in the case. Nor do we know exactly the reason for the lawsuit. It's because Daryl died or was it the fact that the company did not have effective equipment to properly protect Daryl. Make sure that we know that you're suing right persons and why. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 53 Name 1. Who should win? Joe Scott Chris Plaintiff probably Completely undecided Plaintiff probably Paul Plaintiff probably Dave Mary Margaret Completely undecided Plaintiff probably Plaintiff definitely Olaolwa Plaintiff probably Brooke Plaintiff probably Cathy Anna Completely undecided Completely undecided Cyndi Plaintiff probably Latasha Plaintiff definitely Mattie Plaintiff definitely Nicole Plaintiff probably Christina Plaintiff probably Pat Completely undecided Ariel Plaintiff definitely Ryan Plaintiff probably Why? To me, Alderman and his family suffered for 18 months from this horrible disease. 3M knew that this mask didn't work but still put it on the market. At this point, being non-bias, 1 would say 3M was wrong. So was Mr. Alderman though. He knew the mask wasn't good, it's obvious. 3M knew that their product was not fully protecting workers. Assuming all claims are true, 3M is partially at fault. However, many claims were simply that, claims. If 3M proves them to be false, my decision will change. 1 think that it still is hard to decide but how do you know he wore the mask all the time, and also, he was exposed no matter if he wore it or not. Hearing his side is convincing and has facts to back it up. He was sold out by his company and 3M. The fact that 3M knew the mask was unfit for the type of work Alderman was doing yet marketed it to those types of industries means that they should be held liable. A man vs. a company must be compensated. 1 kinda feel that the family deserves something but 1 still feel 1 haven't heard enough to really decide. Like to hear 3M side. 3M was negligent selling a product that did not work, knowing that, they were trying to fool the industries by deception and omission causing many illnesses/deaths. Because the mask did not work, and there was never any warnings that the mask would not work. It's very clear that the mask does not work and never did. Because it took his life. Looking at the picture on the film, he left behind a beautiful family. Plaintiff should win because the masks worn didn't protect from dangerous chemicals. Because the company was at fault, for not making the product right. The mask long ago was not properly made for anyone and 1 feel no matter where we are and what we do, we are all going to die from something. One because the defendant knowingly distributed the safety equipment issued did not protect the plaintiff nor anyone else who used it on top of that there was not a proper warning for those who used the equipment. The withheld information held from the deceased cost him his life (with proper info they (family) could have made a sound choice of employment). CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 54 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 3M Co. 7 6 7 8 4 8 10 9 7 4 6 10 10 5 5 10 7 10 10 Daryl A. Other 7 6 5 2 6 5 1 2 7 3 2 2 5 5 5 4 5 Who is other? 7 6 AM/GM 6 10 AM 7 6 6 5 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 55 Name 2. Plaintiff MOST convincing. Joe Scott Chris That 3M still put the mask on the market even though they knew the mask didn't work. That they knew the mask wouldn't work. That 3M knew that their products were not fully protecting. Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa The advertisements saving that 3M claimed the mask worked. About the facts they knew it did not protect against asbestos. The information on the part. 3M knew the masks never worked. The way that he presented the information of how the mask was developed and how it repeated failed safety inspections only to finally pass muster when it was tested under controlled conditions. Brooke The company bought the masks for employees. Cathy That they know that the mask didn't work. Anna The fact that 3M knew that the mask was not doing the job it was designed to do. Cyndi Plaintiff was not informed masks did not work. Was innocent victim brought on by 3M's greed. Latasha Mattie That there was never any warning labels until 2006. The company was about the safety of the cause and they knew what would happen if you should not wear the mask. Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan The proof about the masks worn. It wasn't because the 3M respirator didn't get rid of all the asbestos. That 3M mask will never be made the right way but 1 feel everyone should have precautions. The fact that 3M company did not provide the proper info/facts about the equipment that they manufactured, and sold for safety usage. History of case. (Quotes of marketing strategies used to prosper company.) 3. Why? 1 feel like every worker that put the mask on has some right of money from 3M for false advertising. That is false advertising to say it does. This is hard evidence that 3M claimed protection and thus also assumed some responsibility. Cause it's the facts. It was too important to leave out. He was able to back up his position with documentation. Safety requirements have changed over years. If they know they didn't work why keep selling them. The fact that 3M kept the mask on the market for so long after knowing it served no purpose. Plaintiff and others like him who suffered same fate were innocent victims - again all in the name of greed. Because the company 3M never made it to where there was warning labels on their masks. The company knew about the dangers but sold the masks anyway. It is the companies responsibility to provide the accurate and truthful information about the equipment. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 56 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 4. Plaintiff LEAST convincing? Mr. Alderman worked in a different plant and we don't know really where the asbestos came from. That Mr. Alderman was doing what he was told. He could have used his old respirator. It is obvious to anyone who puts one of those masks on that t doesn't work. That he did other work without a mask. The claim that 3M was telling customers that the masks did not work. How do 1 know he wore the mask al the time? Want to know more on how long Daryl worked around air particles before learning hi needed to cover his air ways. One size doesn't fit all. Not sure. That he knew the conversations that took place when buyers asked 3M if masks protected against asbestos. That he was around the dust without the mask on. Was it cause from working around the dust without a mask. None, did what he was told. 1 feel all of it was convincing. 1 don't think the family should get $3 million because yes they suffered, but people die everyday, families suffer everyday. None of it. The fact that the mask did not fit the face. The fact that the plaintiff was exposed to these conditions knowingly and still used the equipment even though it was not proper for the jobs he was employed. Needed more accounts of info to make it stick. Presentation had no emotion more like played on intelligence. 5. Why? 1 just think that the employer should of stuck with something they knew was going to work. See above. Completely unfounded. No witnesses called, not even a name given, no proof is discouraging. Cause there's no way to know. is an older man who most likely was around asbestos for a considerable amount of time before learning of safety issues. Everyone knew that. Everything seemed convincing. He just threw that information in quickly. Because he should of known that it was hazards to be around that dust and not have protection on. Maybe he thought if nothing has happened yet he would be fine not wearing the mask. Wore cartidgs respiratory at beginning of his employment, then companies, to save money and time, went with other non-effective mask from 3M. 3M deceived companies and their employees. Because it was all related in some way to being apart of the product. 1 lost my grandma when 1 was 14 and my aunts and uncles both took the hospital to court and lost so 1 feel that family shouldn't get $3 million. It was boring. The plaintiff should be concerned with his safety first of all and he should still have voiced his concern with the improper equipment he was given. Quotes of facts almost made it irreversible make 3M and AM alliance stick. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 57 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 6. Who should win? Plaintiff probably Defendant probably Plaintiff probably Defendant probably Defendant probably Defendant probably Completely undecided Completely undecided Plaintiff probably Defendant probably Defendant probably Plaintiff definitely Plaintiff definitely Plaintiff definitely Defendant definitely Defendant probably Defendant probably Plaintiff probably 3M Co. Daryl 10 5 8 1 1 7 3 6 7 3 1 9 10 9 3 7 5 5 5 8 6 3 4 7 7 5 3 2 1 6 9 27 10 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 58 Name Joe Scott Chris 7. Defendant MOST convincing? That 3M was using false advertising by not telling or warning that the 8500 was not going to protect against asbestos. 3M couldn't control AM & GM. Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa He said himself he did not wear his mask. 1 feel the information is more accurate, 3M may be partially responsible but 100%. Didn't advertise as safety for asbestos. When he mentioned the Daryl might not have always wore the mask. Brooke That 3M was not directly responsible. Cathy Anna Other comp knew what they were buying. The fact that he companies the plaintiff worked for chose the mask. Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Even though they sold product - they knew it wouldn't prevent toxic protection and didn't put warnings on until years later. Should have worked with companies hazard/risk mgmt team to discuss masks uses and improvements. He had a very convincing argument but the fact is that 3M did not put warning on the boxes until 2006 and Mr. Alderman was not at fault because 1 believe he had known that the mask did not work he would have used something else for he was very cautious and used his mask properly. He had other jobs that exposed him to the illness, why would the family point fingers at 3M? That the 3M mask was not completely protected not made right to protect him. The fact that the employers gave the mask to the defendant knowing that they would not work for the job or environment the plaintiff was in. The fact that the plaintiff admitted to sometimes not wearing a mask in the conditions he endured. Ryan That he agreed with the plaintiff. 8. Why? 3M knew that this product did not work but they still sold it. Explanation of 'nuisance dust' vs. asbestos. Explanation of detailed safety policies associated with 8710. His own words. The age of plaintiff plays a big part of my decision. Who actually advertised the mask? This could punch some holes in his argument. He's passing responsibility everywhere but the source 3M period. They should of read the warnings on the box of the mask. The companies knew that the mask was not protecting the plaintiffs from asbestos. Plaintiff did not wear mask, however, this disease did not just come from 1980's on, 1 believe it started in the beginning of his employment and everywhere he worked he was exposed. Was he told the dangers, i.e., black lung for miners, etc.? Mr. Alderman used his mask properly. The family is just after the money because Mr. Alderman was in there company so long. Well the plaintiff should have been more concerned with his own safety on top of seeking a better protective mask for his own personal use. How can be in agreement with the plaintiff and not seek restitution. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 59 Name 9. Defendant LEAST convincing? Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave How it was Mr. Alderman's fault for his death. Relieves responsibility. Nothing. Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy 1 feel they admitted some truth to make a buck. No documentation. He had listed some facts but didn't really have documentation to back it up. That there was a disclaimer on the box. He tried to use sympathy and use it in his favor. There really wasn't one. Anna Cyndi Nothing. They are still culpable. Also GM and AM should be involved, sued for damages. They needed to investigate masks efficiency and did not have policies in place if employees did not adhere to safety guidelines and wear them. Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan There were never any warnings until 2006 on the boxes. Nothing. The 3M mask is responsible for his protection and if the mask was taken off then it was Mr. Alderman's fault for not wearing his protection all the time. And their in it for the money only of 3M. The fact that the defendant stated the limitations of the masks to employers, and still either failed to use proper equipment. Responsibility vs. accountability. 10. Why? Mr. Alderman's death was not his fault at all even though he didn't wear his mask sometimes the mask didn't work at all so basically it was like him not wearing the mask when he was. He was right on with facts. They company may have known and left out information but 1 think the company and plaintiff are equally responsible. 1 need proof that is documented. That's not true. He was pretty convincing. 1 thought the defendant was very convincing that they were not at fault for several reasons. Bottom line, big companies are in it for the money. Asbestos and other toxic substances were around for years, however, just over the past 10-15 years these exposures are just now suitacing in former exposed employees. Because it was proven by the plaintiff's attorney that there was no warning until 2006 on the boxes. The defendant should have had a more elaborate safety and regulations guideline for the employers to follow. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 60 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 11. Who should win? Plaintiff probably Defendant definitely Plaintiff probably Defendant definitely Defendant definitely Defendant definitely 3M Co. Daryl 97 13 76 1 10 14 1 10 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 61 Name 12. Three facts most favoring PLAINTIFF. Fact one. Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy 3M used false advertising. 8500 did not protect against asbestos. No warnings on the package the mask came in until later date. Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat None. Ariel Ryan Advertisements for the masks didn't fully disclose safety. Plaintiff fact two. When using against dust it only protects the buyer pieces. 8710 did not fit properly. Mr. Alderman did have asbestos in his lung. 1 find plaintiff and the companies at fault. The sheer look of the masks does not give a sense of safety. Plaintiff fact three. When first put on market didn't protect at all. There are warnings to show that the mask could not protect from asbestos. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 62 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 13. Three facts most favoring DEFENSE. Fact one. Went on market in 1962 and was not approved for asbestos. 8500 was not meant to protect against asbestos. Admission by Mr. Alderman himself -taking off his mask. The other comp. 3M informed the employers of the defects of the mask. Defense fact two. 8710 went on market by 1972 but have to be approved by NIOSH if 1. fit, 2. below lOxPei. Defense fact three. Warning labels went onto the box in 2000. 8710 did not fit properly (with explanation). There were options with using different masks. The plaintiff didn't wear his mask. Daryl himself admitted to neglecting using the mask. Employers themselves neglected to provide proper masks for certain jobs. 14.1 would like to know: 1 think we all want to know why 3M sold these masks to the companies when they knew they didn't protect against asbestos. 1 wish the answer to the question did the 8710 work properly when used. What was the advertisement that 3M gave or what limitations did the manufacturers/GM/AM ask in pertaining to the masks that they were giving to their workers. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 63 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan 1 FIND IN FAVOR OF: Plaintiff Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff Defendant Defendant Defendant Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Why? He did not know that the product he thought he was using to protect himself didn't protect him at all. 3M never forced Mr. Alderman to wear that mask. AM and GM bought these masks and supplied them. Because Mr. Alderman had admitted he had not always worn his mask properly. 3M never claimed that the 8500 protected against asbestos. Despite claims of a poorly fit mask, Alderman himself said it fit well. Also he was exposed to environments where the mask was not expected to work. For the simple fact, Alderman knew he was working in a harmful place, he admitted in his own words that he removed and sometimes didn't wear it at all. How can 1 blame a mask company even if they knew the product didn't work, if the man didn't wear the mask anyway? There is proof that 3M withheld information, so there is doubt in my mind as to their innocence. Mr. Alderman didn't really have choice about his mask - was he fully aware of the danger? 1 believe that 3M's marketing campaign as largely at fault in that they should have been more careful as to how they marketed the masks; also, when it came to light these masks weren't safe against asbestos, the companies that bought them should have investigated other alternatives. Although 3M knowingly distributed these masks to the companies Mr. Alderman worked for once, the deal was made, the responsibility fell on the employers. Because the other comp should- be held responsible for what they bought and Mr. Alderman admits to not wearing the mask all the time. 1 feel that the company who chose to use the mask are at fault as well as Mr. Alderman. 3M knowingly distributed a mask that would not protect workers from small airborne particles. If disease takes 20-30 years to incubate, Mr. Alderman most likely was overexposed in the 50's, early 60's and over time other exposure just added insult to injury. Mr. Alderman followed safety procedures but the masks provided to him made by 3M did not work and Mr. Alderman was never warned of the dangers of using the masks. Because of his pain and suffering. He was a very nice person, a family man, trying to take care of his family. Mr. Alderman was at fault for not wearing the mask at all times while at work. The other companies were at fault. AM and GM were at fault. 1/2 and 1/2 of not wearing mask. 1 feel that 3M should not be liable in the case of Daryl Alderman because they clearly stated that the masks provided did not protect against asbestos but AM and GM still opted to use them improperly at their facilities. It seems that 3M is covering for GM by excluding itself from the accountability for affiliation with GM. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 64 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan Alderman 0% 10% 100% 50% 75% 30% 25% 10% 0% 50% 50% 80% 0% 70% 0% 0% 50% 9% 3M 75% 10% 0% 0% 0% 20% 2% 40% 100% 0% 0% 20% 100% 20% 50% 0% 0% 50% Other 25% 80% 0% 50% 25% 50% 73% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 10% 50% 100% 50% 41% CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 65 Name Joe Scott Why those percentages? Alderman had no idea the mask he was using did not protect from asbestos. 3M; GM, and American Mineral knew that this product did not work. 3M used false advertising with these face masks. Plaintiff was for times he took off or did not wear mask. 40% each for GM & AM for knowingly buying a faulty product and distributing it to workers who worked in harmful situations. 10% for 3M for false advertising about use of the 8500. Chris 3M was using the don't ask don't tell unless asked. Mr. Alderman was not always wearing the mask properly. [He had 60/40 P/D and crossed out.] Paul Dave Alderman chose not to wear the mask in some situations. In others his employers put him in situations where the mask would not protect him. Other = GM/Mineral. Other = company. Mr. Alderman knew he should have never at any moment stopped wearing his mask and in his own words, he did, and the companies supplying the mask should have checked on the product and its safety for their workers more. Mary Margaret Olaolwa Once Daryl is informed of his responsibility it lies on him to take care of himself. 3M also should be held accountable for distributing product knowing it was faulty. The company Mr. Alderman worked for also [responsible] for inspecting product and not going cheap route. The companies Mr. Alderman worked for are responsible for the masks he wore. The co's are responsible for conditions and seeing things were done safely. It all started with 3M's marketing. They should not have led people to believe that these masks were all that safe. 1 think the fact that they waited until this decade to assign warnings on packages was especially careless. On the other hand, it should have been AM and GM's responsibility not to go with a mask that wasn't shown to work. Finally, if Alderman did indeed take off his mask occasionally, he should share some guilt. Brooke Responsibility goes back to the source. Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Because Mr. Alderman knew to wear the mask at all times and the companies should of made sure that they would protect their employees from the asbestos. Mr. Alderman chose on more than one occasion not to use the mask and that the companies did not look at the product more carefully and the companies did not enforce the use of the mask. 3M knowingly produced/distributed and sold masks that were not up to standards. This all for the love of money - greed. The 3M executives back then would not be around to see the results of this horrible business decision and the horrific consequences that "workers" suffered. Because 3M should have been more honest about their product so that people could have made a choice of whether or not to use the mask from 3M or use a different safety mask. Mattie Nicole Mr. Alderman knew about the dangers but decided to take the mask off then again, somebody should have said something to him about not wearing the mask that he had taken off. Christina 3M should've been more cautious on the companies they chose to hire. Pat That 3M is responsible for the mask of no protection. Ariel Ryan Well, 1 feel that Daryl should have been more cautious and aware of the dangers he was surrounded by and should have been more persistent in regards to his health even if he wasn't diagnosed until later in life. 1 also feel that the employers are more responsible for not providing asbestos protection masks that are certified with a stamp for approval. Mr. Alderman was a faithful employee. Regardless of years committed, he is not above rules, regulations, and instructions. He only did what he was allowed to do because of seniority. 3M is showing a lot of concern for GM which makes it look like more than business (kind of like big brother taking up for little brother). CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 66 Name Joe Scott Chris Paul Dave Mary Margaret Olaolwa Brooke Cathy Anna Cyndi Latasha Mattie Nicole Christina Pat Ariel Ryan Past medical $120,000 $0 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 All $0 $0 $120,000 $1,020,000 $30,000 $120,000 $120,000 Full Pain and suffering $1,500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $50,000 $17,000 $60,000 Full Mental anguish $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $170,000 $120,000 $20,000 $0 Full Loss of society $880,000 $0 $500,000 $100,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $170,000 $125,000 $17,000 $2,000,000,000 Full Other $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $180,000 $0 $15,000 $800,000 $0 TOTAL award $4,000,000 $0 $1,120,000 $720,000 $3,120,000 All medical $0 $0 $3,120,000 $3,040,000 $325,000 $189,000 $2,000,980,000 Full Notes Other = AM and GM Wrote 85% next to past medical. CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 67 Appendix B: Correlation Tables CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 68 Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Ever been union member? No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Ever read warning on label? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Over $1M $0 to $500,000 Over $1M Award Category Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Ever been union member? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Ever read warning on label? No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 69 Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Environmental regulations are: About right About right Not tough enough Not tough enough About right About right About right About right About right About right Not tough enough About right About right About right About right About right Not tough enough About right About right Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M 63. How do you feel about jury awards in Madison County? No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion About right No opinion About right No opinion About right No opinion Too high No opinion About right No opinion No opinion About right No opinion Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Environmental regulations are: About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right About right Not tough enough Not tough enough Not tough enough Not tough enough Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Over $1M Over$lM Over $1M $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M 63. How do you feel about jury awards in Madison County? About right About right About right About right About right No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion No opinion Too high CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 70 Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Over $1M Over$lM 66. Too many lawsuits in Madison County. 4 4 6 7 6 4 4 1 3 7 3 7 4 2 5 4 7 1 Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Most co's work hard to ensure employees are protected. Agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree [Blank] Undecided Award Category $0 to $500,000 Over $1M Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM $500,000 to $1M 66. Too many lawsuits in Madison County. 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 Award Category Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over $1M $500,000 to $1M Most co's work hard to ensure employees are protected. [Blank] Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Undecided CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 71 Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Warning labels are generally good enough. Disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Undecided Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM Co's frequently hide info from public about potential dangers. Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree Undecided Undecided Agree Disagree Undecided Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM $500,000 to $1M Warning labels are generally good enough. Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M Over$lM Over $1M $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 Over $1M $0 to $500,000 Over$lM Over $1M Over $1M Co's frequently hide Info from public about potential dangers. Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Undecided Undecided Undecided CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 72 Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over $1M Over$lM 77. Based on what you've read/heard, have you formed any opinions about effectiveness of masks? No NO No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Award Category $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $0 to $500,000 $500,000 to $1M $500,000 to $1M Over $1M Over$lM Over$lM Over$lM $0 to $500,000 $0to $500,000 Over$lM Over$lM 77. Based on what you've read/heard, have you formed any opinions about effectiveness of masks? No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 73