- 27 -
all corroborated the allegation that Halliburton employees had
deliberately and repeatedly ceased efforts to control the well
blowout in order to extract concessions from petitioner and CRI.7
Halliburton’s own counsel conceded at the trial of this case that
he believed a jury would resolve against his client the question
of whether the shutoff of pumping was intentional.
In arguing that Halliburton intended to settle only economic
claims, we believe respondent relies too heavily on the
interrogatory response in which CRI and petitioner fail to
include mental anguish among the damages they allege by
Halliburton. The interrogatory eliciting this response was
immediately preceded by an interrogatory that could be
interpreted as confining the inquiry to damages to the well. As
to Halliburton’s failure to take Mr. Burditt’s deposition,
Halliburton’s attorney conceded at the trial of this case that
further discovery would have been undertaken to clarify Mr.
Burditt’s personal injuries if the case had not settled.
Respondent also emphasizes the failure of either party to
obtain expert testimony concerning mental anguish or other
personal injuries. However, expert testimony would not have been
7 The depositions of these witnesses are cited not for the
truth of the matters asserted, but for the nonhearsay purpose of
showing the evidence that Halliburton's attorneys knew they would
face in any trial of Mr. Burditt's claims.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011