Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00163-GIVIS Document 150-15 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR‘[` HE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DONALD M. DURKIN CONTRACTING, i
INC., Plaintw {
vs. E
CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants E CASE NO. 04-0163-GMS
and I
CITY OF NEWARK, T hird—Party Plaintw E
vs. E
DONALD M. DURKIN CONTRACTING, i
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and }
URS CORPORATION, T hird-Party E
Defendants g
PLAINTIFF, DONALD M. DURKIN CONTRACTING, INC.’S,
PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM
WITH OBJECTIONS BY THE CITY OF NEWARK
POWELL, TRACHTMAN,
LOGAN, CARRLE &
LOMBARDO, P.C.
Paul A. Logan
Delaware Supreme Court ID #3339
475 Allendale Road, Suite 200
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone: 610-354-9700
Telefacsimilez 6l 0-3 54-9760
Attorneys for Plaintw and Third
Party Dejendant Donald M Durkin
Contracting
Dated: August _, 2006
KOP:347674vl 3514-04

Case 1 :04-cv—00163-GIVIS Document 150-15 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
I. Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc.’s Claims Against the City 0f Newark
and Individual Defendants Harold F. Godwin, John H. Farrell, IV, Jerry
Clifton, Karl Kalbacher, David J. Athey, Frank J. Osborne, Jr. and
Christina Rewa
A. D0 you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the City of Newark
breached its duties under the Water Supply Reservoir City of Newark,
Delaware Contract O2-02, and that such breach was a proximate cause of
the damages sought by Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc.?
YES NO
(Newark objects to proposed,B through J on the basis of its Motions in Limine
and should those be denied, objects to the questions as written.)
K you answered YES to any of the Questions above, then you should proceed to
Part IZ K you answered NO to Q of the Questions above, then you should
proceed to Part [Il
II. Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc.’s Damages
A. We the jury, find that Donald M. Durkin, Contracting Inc. is entitled to
recover from the City of Newark for compensatory damages in the amount
of $ MM. .
B. We the jury, find that Donald M. Durkin, Contracting Inc. is entitled to
recover from the individual defendants Harold F. Godwin, John H. Farrell,
IV, Jcrgryl Clifton, Karl Kalbacher, David J. Athey, Frank J. Osborne, Jr.
and Christina Rewa for compensatory damages in the amount of $
(Newark objects to proposed B andC on the basis of its Motions in Limine and
should those be denied, objects to the questions as written).
III. The City of Newark Claims Against Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc.
A. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Donald M. Durkin
Contracting, Inc. breached its duties under the Water Supply Reservoir
City of Newark, Delaware Contract O2-O2 and that such breach was a
proximate cause of the damages sought by the City of Newark?
YES NO
KOP:347674vl 3514-04

Case 1 :04-cv—00163-GIVIS Document 150-15 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
U you answered YES to Question [ILA. then you should proceed t0 Part IV U you
answered NO to Question IHA., then you should proceed to Part VI
IV. The City of Newark Damages Against Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc.
A. We the jury, find that the City of Newark is entitled to recover from
Donald M. Durkin, Contracting Inc. for compensatory damages in the
amount of $ .
V. The City of Newark Against Federal Insurance Company
A. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Federal Insurance
Company breached its duties under the Performance Bond and that such
breach was a proximate cause of the damages sought by the City of
Newark?
YES — NO `
U you answered YES then you should proceed to Part VL H you answered NO
then you should proceed to Part VH
VI. The City of Newark Against Federal Insurance Company
A. We the jury, find that the City of Newark is entitled to recover from
Federal Insurance Company for compensatory damages in the amount of $
VII. The City of Newark and Individual Third Party Plaintiffs Harold F. Godwin,
John H. Farrell, IV, Jerry Clifton, Karl Kalbacher, David J. Athey, Frank J.
Osborne, Jr. and Christina Rewa’s Claims Against URS Corporation
A. Assuming that 100% represents the total causes of Donald M. Durkin,
Contracting Inc.’s damages, what percentage of this 100% is attributable
to the conduct of the City of Newark, and the individual third party
plaintiffs Harold F. Godwin, John H. Farrell, IV, Jerry Clifton, Karl
Kalbacher, David J. Athey, Frank J. Osborne, Jr. and Christina Rewa, and
what percentage of this 100% is attributable to the conduct of URS
Corporation, Inc.?
% to the City of Newark, and the individual third party plaintiffs
Harold F. Godwin, John H. Farrell, IV, Jerry Clifton, Karl Kalbacher,
KOP:347674vl 3514-04

Case 1 :04-cv—00163-GIVIS Document 150-15 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 4 of 4
David J. Athey, Frank J. Osbome, Jr. and Christina Rewa
% to URS Corporation, Inc.
B. If you find that Donald M. Durkin, Contracting, Inc. is entitled to_` damages
from the City of Newark and/orjthe. individual defendants, do you also
- find by a preponderance of evidencethat URS breached its duties to the
City of Newark and that this breach was the proximate-cause of damages
to Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc.
YES . . ‘ NO .
C. We the jury, find that The City of Newark is entitled toirecover from the
URS Corporation in the amount of $ I .
VIII. URS Corporation’s Claims Against the City of Newark
A. Do you tind by a preponderance of the evidence that the City of Newark
breached its duties under its Contract with URS Corporation, Inc. and that
such breach was a proximate cause of the damages sought by the URS
Corporation, Inc.?
YES NO
U you answered YES then you should proceed to Part IX H you answered NO,
then you should sign and date the verdict form and tell the bailw you have
reached a verdict.
IX. URS Corporation Inc.’s Damages Against the City of Newark
A. We the jury, find that the URS Corporation, Inc. is entitled to recover from
the City of Newark, Inc. for compensatory damages in the amount of $
You should sign and date the verdict form and tell the bailf you have reached a
verdict.
SO SAY WE ALL, this day of , 2006
Floorperson
KOP:347674v1 3514-04

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 150-15

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 150-15

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 150-15

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00163-GMS

Document 150-15

Filed 08/22/2006

Page 4 of 4