Jury rules in 3M's favor in groundwater pollution case

Youch. Sounds like the plaintiffs should have taken the offer they were made. When your claims start getting dismissed, it's time to take the money. A zero verdict is unusual. Mary Hannon is a good judge and I'm sure she gave both parties a fair trial.

3M's lawyers deserve a big bonus for this one. It takes an incredilbly well presented trial to get 9 jurists to make a decision in this short of a time period or the planiffs were incompetent.

Good!

" It was calculated that a Woodbury resident would have to drink 500,000 glasses of the water daily to get a dose of PFCs comparable to the dose deemed safe for rats. "

Certainly 3M's lawyer said "Game, Set, MATCH!" at least in his/her own head after telling the jury that little tidbit.

The bottom feeding lawyers are already off looking for another company with deep pockets to sue. These scumbags turn my stomach with all their TV ads for their class action suits.

I'm sure the 3M execs are toasting their good fortune. We collectively will let big business poop in the nest for their jobs, like dumb sheep we defend folks who pick our pockets and literally kill us with poison. The fox is guarding the henhouse, wake up folks.

The good guys won this round...but as others have pointed out, the greedy pigs of trial lawyerdom will soon seek other targets.

There may still be a shred of hope in America. Reason and rationality are not completely dead...not yet, anyway.

best news in weeks. about time these litigious enviro-pests got shut down in a court of law. the enviros are nothing more than crypto-fascists - anti-capitalists and communists in camouflage.

Tybalt wrote:

best news in weeks. about time these litigious enviro-pests got shut down in a court of law. the enviros are nothing more than crypto-fascists - anti-capitalists and communists in camouflage.

WOW!! And here I thought this was about families worried about the effect of ingesting 3M's PFC's and Organic Solvents that were found in their well water and Oakdale's City water supply.
Silly me, What was I thinking.

TiredOldVet wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW!! And here I thought this was about families worried about the effect of ingesting 3M's PFC's and Organic Solvents that were found in their well water and Oakdale's City water supply.
Silly me, What was I thinking.

Do your homework before you spout off. 3M did everything they could to correct every problem, after they found out some chemicals could be harmful. They did nothing illegal. My comment 2 monthes ago was, sounds like people looking for easy money.

Tybalt wrote:

best news in weeks. about time these litigious enviro-pests got shut down in a court of law. the enviros are nothing more than crypto-fascists - anti-capitalists and communists in camouflage.

I also have distaste for the lunatic fringe of any organization or movement, but I'm more reluctant to paint people with a wide brush who are concerned with the condition of our environment as fascists or communists. If I witnesses someone pouring waste oil down a storm sewer to save a transportation buck and reported that person, does that make me an anti-capitalist? Is it only the “tax and spend” liberal that wastes public monies on building and maintaining per say a wastewater treatment facility? I’ve lived next to the Cottage Grove 3M facility most of my life. If you want I’ll bottle some tap water for you and your children to consume? It’s just not helpful to have glib retorts to complex issues.......

A rare triumph of science and logic over irrational fears and mob psychology.

This does not in any way preclude the same lawyer or others from filing a similar suit on behalf of others. There are a lot of folks in lake elmo and woodbury.

the world must be coming to an end! For the first time in forever a jury actually ruled in favor of a business. They usually give away a companies' money like it's a bonanza and it will never affect the rest of us. The lawyers probably got fired. What is a third of nothing?

TiredOldVet wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW!! And here I thought this was about families worried about the effect of ingesting 3M's PFC's and Organic Solvents that were found in their well water and Oakdale's City water supply.
Silly me, What was I thinking.

Acually, this was about greedy lawyers, and greedy people trying to get a free payday on a company.

Motley Larry wrote:

<quoted text> Acually, this was about greedy lawyers, and greedy people trying to get a free payday on a company.

You quoted me twice and yet you have said nothing that refutes what I said. The suit was brought by people concerned for their health and property values. Youv'e blabbered on about lawyers but have provided NO factual data that this isn't so. You must know something the rest of us don't. I believe you are part of a right-wing conspiracy group intent on withholding informaton from the American people. Confess or else!!!

TiredOldVet wrote:

<quoted text>
You quoted me twice and yet you have said nothing that refutes what I said. The suit was brought by people concerned for their health and property values. Youv'e blabbered on about lawyers but have provided NO factual data that this isn't so. You must know something the rest of us don't. I believe you are part of a right-wing conspiracy group intent on withholding informaton from the American people. Confess or else!!!

I didn't know you were a lawyer, too bad. The suit was disguised as an action to compensate property values, by people whose house value plummeted. Take off your blinders. Now go drink 5,000 gallons of the water.

Motley Larry wrote:

<quoted text> I didn't know you were a lawyer, too bad. The suit was disguised as an action to compensate property values, by people whose house value plummeted. Take off your blinders. Now go drink 5,000 gallons of the water.

I'm defiantly not a lawyer.
You still supply no facts, just your obviously biased opinions. If your home was devalued due to pollution from a corporation, you won't seek compensation?
I objected not to the verdict in the trial , but to your foolish statement that the homeowners involved were only pawns of a bunch of greedy lawyers. I'm still waiting for any proof you have to back up your opinion. Until then I 'll give the family's affected by the dumping the benefit of the doubt as to their motives.

TiredOldVet wrote:

<quoted text>
You quoted me twice and yet you have said nothing that refutes what I said. The suit was brought by people concerned for their health and property values. Youv'e blabbered on about lawyers but have provided NO factual data that this isn't so. You must know something the rest of us don't. I believe you are part of a right-wing conspiracy group intent on withholding informaton from the American people. Confess or else!!!

Playing with the burden of poof are we? How about you prove he's wrong. Hint--expressing an opinion and declaring something to be true is not the same as proof.

p t bull wrote:

<quoted text>
Playing with the burden of poof are we? How about you prove he's wrong. Hint--expressing an opinion and declaring something to be true is not the same as proof.

What?? Did you mean expressing an opinion and declaring something to be true is not the same? Or did you mean that an opinion without proof (or facts of anykind) is worthless?

TiredOldVet wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm defiantly not a lawyer.
You still supply no facts, just your obviously biased opinions. If your home was devalued due to pollution from a corporation, you won't seek compensation?
I objected not to the verdict in the trial , but to your foolish statement that the homeowners involved were only pawns of a bunch of greedy lawyers. I'm still waiting for any proof you have to back up your opinion. Until then I 'll give the family's affected by the dumping the benefit of the doubt as to their motives.

Are you one of those homeowners looking for a quick payday? They were not able to prove any negligence on the part of 3M. How do you propose they were damaged? I don't have to prove anything to you. My opinion is they were looking for easy money, along with the lawyers. What's your stake in this?