A court in Philadelphia has upheld a $725 million jury verdict against ExxonMobil while ordering the oil giant to pay an additional $90-plus million in delay damages in a case involving a former mechanic’s cancer diagnosis linked to benzene exposure.
The case centered around Gill, a former mechanic at a Mobil service station, who worked there in the 1970s. Gill, now 67, developed both acute myeloid leukemia and colon cancer, which he attributed to prolonged exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen and a key ingredient in gasoline. His attorneys argued that ExxonMobil had been aware of benzene’s cancer risks for decades but failed to warn its workers, prioritizing profits over safety.
The original verdict, delivered in May, found ExxonMobil liable for negligence and failure to warn Gill of the dangers of benzene. The jury awarded Gill and his wife, Diane, $725.5 million in compensatory damages.
In response, ExxonMobil filed several motions, which the judge denied on Sept. 12. Besides denying the oil giant’s motions, Jacquinto also molded the final verdict to include $90.8 million in delay damages, bringing the total award to $815.8 million.
DuPont emphasized the importance of this case in bringing attention to the cancer risks posed by exposure to benzene, a hazard present in various petroleum products.
DuPont noted that Gill and his wife hope the verdict encourages companies that incorporate benzene into their products to “take appropriate steps to prevent benzene exposure and prevent people like Mr. Gill from developing cancer and suffering the terrible effects of that disease.”
“Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene,” states EPA’s fact sheet on benzene.
Gill, who was diagnosed with blood cancer in 2019, said in his 2020 lawsuit that he used petroleum products to clean car parts with his bare hands, exposing him to benzene through direct skin contact and inhalation.
An ExxonMobil spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
“The jury verdict rendered in May was irrational and the result of prejudicial opinions unrelated to plaintiff’s claims,” the spokesperson said. “We'll continue to exhaust all available appeals to seek the relief to which we are entitled.”
