The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Eli Ellender worked periodically as an independent contractor millwright at D's refinery and chemical plants between 1963 and 1977. He repaired, serviced, and cleaned pumps, product lines, and other equipment. While working at D, Ellender was exposed to benzene. Roy Gatlin, one of Ellender's co-workers, testified that on many occasions he and Ellender steam-cleaned equipment containing benzene and inhaled benzene. Gatlin and other co-workers also testified that workers used benzene, furnished by D, to wash their tools and hands as often as daily. Russell Witzke, an industrial hygienist at d from 1973 to 1976, admitted that benzene was always being spilled on the ground when piping equipment was connected and disconnected. Ellender's co-workers testified that they never saw any signs warning them of benzene hazards at D and that D did not monitor them for exposure or provide them with protective gear when they worked around benzene. D did not include any reference to benzene or other chemicals in its 1967 pamphlet entitled 'Mobil Safety and Security Regulations for Contract Workers.' Dr. Josh Esslinger, a former medical consultant for Mobil in Beaumont, testified that he knew workers washed their hands in benzene and that such a practice indicated that workers were not adequately warned of benzene hazards. Dr. Dement testified that D’s industrial hygiene program was poor and practically nonexistent for contractors. He was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia and died in 1989. P, Ellender's surviving family, sued D. P alleged that D was negligent, grossly negligent, and malicious in: (1) failing to warn Ellender about his exposure to benzene on D's premises and the risks associated with it, and (2) failing to protect Ellender from those risks. The jury found that D's conduct was grossly negligent and malicious and awarded P $622,888.97 in compensatory damages and $6,000,000 in punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the gross negligence and malice findings and the punitive damages award. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.