John R. Newby

Bar / Professional Activity

• Virginia
• Million Dollar Advocates Forum
• Richmond Bar Association
• Virginia Trial Lawyers Association

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

• $4,000,000.00 Settlemnt - Confidential  TYPE OF CASE:            Natural Gas Explosion Plaintiff was a 36 year old female immigrant from the Caribbean who worked as a housekeeper at a hotel. On October 4, 2014, she was doing laundry in a laundry room equipped with natural gas dryers. She placed her clothes in the dryer, started the dryer, and began to walk out of the laundry room. As she opened the door and stepped outside, the explosion occurred. She sustained 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her face, neck, upper body, both arms, and both hands. She was left with significant permanent scarring, primarily on her arms. She also suffered from extreme anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder after the explosion.   Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent for (1) failing to properly maintain the gas piping in the laundry room; and (2) failing to properly respond to prior reports of gas odors in or near the laundry room.   The case was vigorously defended. The defense denied that they were negligent.  The defense claimed that the prior reports of gas odors were too infrequent and too remote in time to be related to the leak that caused the explosion. In addition, the defense claimed that they acted reasonably in response to the prior reports of gas odors. Multiple witnesses testified that maintenance technicians using hand held leak detectors responded to the prior reports but no leak was ever found. Furthermore, a number of witnesses testified in deposition that they had been in the laundry frequently in the years prior to the explosion and never smelled an odor of natural gas.   Plaintiff designated a number of expert witnesses on liability, including a plumber, fire systems engineer, and a certified property manager. Plaintiff’s experts opined that the gas piping in the laundry room was not in compliance with the National Fuel Gas Code, which governs piping of this type. The plaintiff’s theory was that the Code required bracing on the steel pipe servicing the dryers. With no bracing, the pipe could be pulled forward or backward as a result of vibration or from cleaning or servicing of the dryer. Plaintiff’s experts further opined that the crack in the pipe developed over time due to the lack of the code required bracing.   The defendants denied that the applicable code required bracing on the pipe. The defendants’ theory was that the break in the pipe occurred as a result of vandalism shortly before the plaintiff entered the laundry room. The defendants’ expert opined that the examination of the fracture surface indicated that the crack was caused suddenly and was an acute fracture. In addition, it was undisputed that the dryer was found upside down after the explosion with its coin slot pried off. Based on the location of the coin receptacle, the defenses’ experts opined that it would have been necessary to turn the dyer over in order to empty the coins out of the coin receptacle. Thus, the defense contended, the leak was caused shortly before the explosion as a result of vandals turning over the dryer. Turning over the dryer pulled on the steel pipe and caused the crack.   Plaintiff was unable to present a future wage loss claim or life care plan. The defense argued that any testimony regarding future wage loss or future medical costs would open the door for the defense to tell the jury that the plaintiff was an undocumented immigrant and planned to return to her home country after trial.   Mediation was attempted on January 18th, 2016, with Judge Thomas Shadrick (Ret). The case did not settle at mediation but Judge Shadrick continued to work on resolving the case every day thereafter. Settlement was reached a week later for $4,000,000.00., 2016

Honors

• Rising Star from 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012, Super Lawyer

Educational Background

• Virginia Commonwealth University, B.A.

• Personal Injury