Paul Gill, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation

Case Background

On May 28, 2020, Paul and Diane Gill filed a negligence lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., Radiator Specialty Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., CRC Industries Inc., Sunoco LLC, Safety-Kleen Systems Inc., Shell Oil Co., Berryman Products Inc., Univar USA Inc., Ashland LLC, Brenntag Southwest, Union Oil Co. of California, The Blaster Corp., Illinois Tool Works Inc., Henkel Corp., and Root Oil Co. Inc. (“Defendants”).

The case was brought in the Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas. They claimed that these companies were responsible for the negligence that involved exposing Paul Gill to benzene-containing products during his work at gas stations in New York and Pennsylvania. Judge Carmella Jacquinto presided over this case. [Case number: 2005-01803]

Cause

Paul Gill (“Plaintiff”) lived in Addison, New York, along with his wife, Diane Gill.  Paul Gill worked for several employers where he was exposed to benzene-containing products from the Defendants. His employment history includes:

– Painted Post ARCO, at North Hamilton and Pulteney Streets, Painted Post, NY, in 1974
– Cole’s Garage, Summer Main Street, Hamilton Valley, PA, from 1975 to 1980
– Leland Harris Dairy Farm, 856 River Road, Lindley, NY, from 1986 to 1993 or 1994

During his work as a Mobil service station mechanic from 1975 to 1980, Paul Gill frequently handled various benzene-containing products such as solvents, adhesives, degreasers, oils, and gasoline. The Defendants were responsible for manufacturing, processing, packaging, selling, distributing, marketing, supplying, and placing these products into the market.

In addition to his work, Paul used benzene-containing products in non-work-related activities from about 1972 to 2019. He was exposed to ingredients like xylene, toluene, mineral spirits, hexane, naphthas, ethylbenzene, and other hydrocarbons, which were also managed by the Defendants.

Paul’s exposure to these products came from inhaling their vapors and through skin contact. This included direct contact with the products, touching clothes contaminated by these substances, and being exposed to benzene vapors in the air.

Injury

Due to his exposure to the Defendants’ benzene-containing products and their wrongful actions, Plaintiff developed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML).

Initially, Plaintiff was unaware of the link between his cancer and the benzene in the Defendants’ products. Over time, he learned of this connection. As a result of AML and its treatments, the Plaintiff endured various side effects, and conditions. These issues led to pain, suffering, and disability. Additionally, he faced disfigurement, deformity, and physical impairment. The treatments also caused mental anguish, anxiety, and humiliation. Moreover, he became more prone to infections.

Damages

Due to the Defendants’ actions and failures, Plaintiff could no longer participate in activities that brought him joy. Additionally, the Plaintiff had to spend substantial amounts on medical treatments, hospitalizations, and medications for his disease and injuries. This led to further economic expenses and losses, which would have continued to grow.

As a result of the injuries caused by the Defendants to Paul Gill, his wife Diane Gill suffered loss of consortium. She would have to continue to incur significant medical and other costs to care for Paul Gill’s injuries.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Paul Gill | Diane Gill
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Andrew J. DuPont | Shrice C. Wallace | Timothy A. Burke | Patrick Wigle | Rajeev Mittal
  • Defendant(s): ExxonMobil | U.S. Steel Corp. | Radiator Specialty Co. | Atlantic Richfield Co. | CRC Industries Inc. | Sunoco LLC | Safety-Kleen Systems Inc. | Shell Oil Co. | Berryman Products Inc. | Univar USA Inc. | Ashland LLC | Brenntag Southwest | Union Oil Co. of California | The Blaster Corp. | Illinois Tool Works Inc. | Henkel Corp. | Root Oil Co. Inc
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Christopher D. Stofko | Vaughn K. Schultz | Chad D. Mountain (for ExxonMobil)

Key Remarks by C0unsel

The Plaintiffs’ attorney, Patrick Wiglesaid of Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel said, “This verdict is important because it’s a finding that their gasoline causes cancer. ExxonMobil has known for decades that benzene causes cancer, yet they resisted warning the public and taking basic precautions to warn the public and limit exposure.”

Exxon called the verdict “irrational” and said it would ask the court to reverse it before it becomes final.  “Beyond that request, we plan to exhaust all available appeals and are confident an appellate court will see the verdict for what it is,” the company said in a statement. “We are reviewing our next steps.”

Claims

The Plaintiffs claimed the following in their complaint:

Count I – Negligence & Gross Negligence

Defendants should have known that benzene causes severe health issues like blood and bone marrow damage, DNA damage, cancer, and leukemia. They were aware that their products contained benzene. However, the Plaintiff, his employers, and others did not know the full extent of the danger, including the risk of cancer and leukemia, from these products and their vapors.

The Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent by:

  • Manufacturing, processing, and selling products containing benzene.
  • Failing to warn the Plaintiff and his employers about the presence of benzene.
  • Not informing them about the health risks, including leukemia, from benzene exposure.
  • Neglecting to provide necessary safeguards and safety procedures.
  • Omitting warnings on product containers and documents about benzene risks.
  • Continuing to sell cancer-causing products, including those with benzene.
  • Not packaging products to prevent benzene contact during use.
  • Failing to communicate safety measures and warnings effectively.
  • Ignoring the need for warnings and precautions.
  • Not training the Plaintiff and his employers on the safe handling of benzene products.
  • Failing to recommend improvements for safer working conditions.
  • Not following relevant safety regulations.
  • Neglecting to test products for benzene content and health hazards.
  • Overlooking the adequacy of labels and warnings.
  • Failing to ensure products were safe for use.
  • Not removing benzene through proper manufacturing.
  • Not developing safer alternatives without benzene.
  • Continuing to sell benzene-containing products despite knowing safer options existed.
  • Manufacturing and selling effective benzene-free products.
  • Deviating grossly from the industry standard of care.
Count II – Breach of Warranty

Defendants warranted, under the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, that their benzene-containing products were safe and fit for use. However, these products were defective, hazardous, and unsafe, leading to diseases like Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Defendants failed to provide necessary warnings and instructions and breached the warranty.

Count III – Strict Liability

Defendants were involved in all stages of handling benzene-containing products. These products were defective when they left Defendants’ control and were expected to reach the Plaintiff and his employers without significant change. Defendants intended that these products would be used as they were. They were, therefore, to be held strictly liable for the damage caused by their negligence and failure to warn about the dangers of their products.

Count IV – Intentional Tort – Battery & Fraud

Defendants intentionally exposed the Plaintiff to benzene-containing products, knowing it would cause harm. They anticipated that their products would be used in a harmful manner and concealed the risks of benzene exposure, including its link to leukemia. ExxonMobil and Mobil Oil, controlling the service station, used this control to promote their interests and hid their knowledge of the dangers of benzene.

Defense

Defendants denied liability for the Plaintiff’s claims. ExxonMobil argued that the evidence failed to support the claims of product defect and inadequate warnings. Additionally, it contended that there was no proof linking cancer to its product.

Jury Verdict

The Philadelphia jury deliberated one full day before reaching a 10-2 verdict for Plaintiff Paul Gill. On May 9, 2024, the twelve-person jury determined that only ExxonMobil was liable for negligence. The other Defendants were not found liable for Gill’s injury.

The jury concluded that ExxonMobil’s negligence was a “factual cause” of harm to Gill. They found ExxonMobil’s gasoline defectively designed and lacking adequate warnings. Consequently, the jury ruled that ExxonMobil’s benzene-containing gasoline was “a substantial contributing factor” in causing Gill’s AML. No comparative negligence was found. 

The total award amounted to $725.5 million. This included:

  • $435,000,000 for Paul Gill’s past, present, and future pain and suffering;
  • $18,125,000 for his embarrassment and humiliation;
  • $18,125,000 for his disfigurement;
  • $253,750,000 for his loss of enjoyment of life; and
  • $500,000 for Diane Gill’s loss of consortium.

Post-trial Motions

When the verdict was announced, ExxonMobil described it as “irrational” and planned to request a reversal before it became final. The court denied this request. ExxonMobil then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, seeking either a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. On September 12, 2024, Judge Carmella G. Jacquinto of the Court of Common Pleas denied both requests and upheld the verdict. Further, the Court added $90 million in delay damages, to bring the total award to almost $816 million.

Andrew DuPont, a partner with Locks Law Firm said, “The denial of the post-trial motions reinforces the jury’s determination that ExxonMobil must be held responsible for causing Mr. Gill’s injuries. It’s important that we continue to fight to bring to light the cancer hazard of exposure to benzene in gasoline.”

Court Documents:

Available upon request

Press Release:

Insurance Journal 

PR Newswire