Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Division, in Dorrell v. Woodruff Energy, Inc., vacated a 2018 judgment against Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (“Chevron”) that had found Chevron liable for gasoline contamination. More specifically, the Appellate Division found that plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to determine that the subject property was contaminated with gasoline because his methodology was flawed and wholly unsupported by any scientific resource.
Background
Plaintiff Sandra Dorrell filed a second amended complaint in 2016 in which she claimed that Chevron was liable for private contributions under the New Jersey Compensation and Control Act (the “Spill Act”), for gasoline contamination in the soil and groundwater on property she purchased in 1984.
During trial, plaintiff called an expert witness, who the trial court qualified as an expert in subsurface investigations involving hydrocarbon contamination, but found he was not qualified to distinguish one type of petroleum product from another. The expert concluded that the soil and groundwater had been contaminated with petroleum products attributable to Chevron and judgment was entered against Chevron. Chevron appealed the judgment and the case was remanded to the trial court in order to conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to determine the admissibility of the expert’s testimony at trial.
To read the full post, please visit the Energy, Chemical & Environmental Trends Watch blog.
