For five Long days in September 1993, Jere Beasley argued a strong case in a wrongful-death suit against Kubota, a tractor manufacturer: He uncovered internal documents in which company officials estimated how many people would be killed each year on Kubota equipment and what it would cost to settle the inevitable
lawsuits. 

There is perhaps no greater challenge to a trial lawyer today than convincing a jury to punish a defendant by awarding punitive damages in a case. The issue of punitive damages has been raging in our state for years now and will most likely remain in the political spotlight for years to come. Tort reformers have turned the phrase "trial lawyer" into a word with a negative connotation. Thus, lawyers who represent consumers are now faced with new jury dynamics. It has become apparent that potential jurors are increasingly suspicious of lawyers who ask for punitive damages. Jurors start and, too frequently, finish the trial process thinking they will not be the ones to allow the injured plaintiff to "win the lottery."

Large toxic tort cases can be lengthy, expensive, and complicated to pursue. Few lawyers who have not litigated such cases appreciate the complex issues that arise and the practical solutions to those issues. As with any case, proper assessment and preparation are key. The factors to be considered in these cases, however, vary dramatically from normal attorney intake procedures. From the logistical perspective of managing thousands of clients, difficulties of proving causation, facing a well funded adversary, to the perseverance required to complete such a long, expensive journey, these cases present challenges to the best of attorneys. However, every once and a while, a case comes along that demonstrates how things should work; Tolbert v. Monsanto was one of those cases.