Closing arguments begin in Exxon leak trial in Baltimore County

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Feb 24, 2009 by Danny Jacobs

A surprised Stephen L. Snyder entered a packed courtroom Monday morning to a standing ovation from Jacksonville residents, as if he had just won an Academy Award. But instead of giving an acceptance speech, Snyder began closing arguments in his clients' billion- dollar lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corp. stemming from a 25,000- gallon-plus gasoline spill in early 2006.

Snyder implored the jury to "send Exxon a message" about its "abominable conduct," repeating the plaintiffs' theme throughout the five-month trial in Baltimore County Circuit Court: Exxon did not replace a leak detection system at the Jacksonville gas station despite a history of problems because to do so would have affected the company's bottom line.

"I think it's clear Exxon's acts were intentional. This was no accident," said Snyder, plaintiffs' lead counsel. "This was a profit- driven choice of a multibillion-dollar company choosing safety secondary to profit."

Folding chairs were brought into the courtroom to accommodate the crowd, nearly all residents. Many who have been courtroom regulars wore suits, underscoring the significance of the day's events. Even Snyder, who has worn a variety of bright-colored shirts and suits during the trial, chose a dark suit, white shirt and red tie on his first day to address the jury for the last time.

The plaintiffs' PowerPoint presentation included comic strip- like cartoons, animation and sound effects to emphasize points. One video clip showed photographs of residents' homes set to idyllic music spliced with home videos of construction workers digging trenches and installing monitoring wells around the same homes following the spill, which went undetected for more than five weeks.

Ignored alarm

Snyder, of Snyder, Weltchek & Snyder in Pikesville, focused on a spoliation -- or destruction of evidence -- point included in Judge Maurice W. Baldwin Jr.'s jury instructions, which took the judge a half-hour to read. Snyder argued Exxon intentionally destroyed the station's line leak detector by removing it from the Jacksonville site without permission from the Maryland Department of the Environment, allowing it to sit at a contractor's facility and not performing the proper, third-party testing.

"They knew they were sitting on an unreliable, ineffective piece of equipment," said Snyder, who repeatedly called the detector a "piece of junk."

Snyder tried to prove his points by revisiting testimony and documents indicating the detector had a history of alarming for reasons other than a leak, to the point technicians "ignored it as a cost of doing business," he said. Exxon officials noted as early as 2002 that finding replacement parts was a problem and were in the process of phasing out the detector in favor of an upgraded system across the country, he said.

The "pieces of the puzzle" added up to an "atmosphere of mistrust" around the detector, compounded in Jacksonville by Exxon relying on contractors to monitor the station's safety features, Snyder said.

"We wouldn't have had a 37-day catastrophe here if they had trusted the system," he said. "They have to know from day one, minute one what's going on at their site. They can delegate, but they can't delegate responsibility."

'Air of arrogance'

Snyder used Exxon's "air of arrogance" and "phony, disingenuous apology" following the leak to discuss with jurors the importance of awarding punitive damages. Such an award would reverberate not only in Maryland but across the country, warning big companies to step on individual rights at their own peril, he said.

"If the message of punitive damages corrects intentional misconduct, that is far more important than where the money goes," he said.

Baldwin, in his jury instructions, told jurors they would only be deciding for now whether or not to award punitive damages; how much would be decided in the next phase of the trial if necessary.

Snyder's closing argument will continue Tuesday.