SUPREME COURT Lawyer: Return WTI case for trial

Expert evidence was ignored by the lower courts, the attorney said.
THE VINDICATOR, YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
By MICHELE C. HLADIK
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- Residents from nearly 16,500 parcels of property located near the Waste Technologies Industries incinerator were not given due process in the Ohio trial or appellate courts, a Pennsylvania lawyer told the Ohio Supreme Court.
Atty. Louis Tarasi Jr. said Tuesday he believes the high court should return the case to the trial court for a jury trial. He said he would like to see the residents compensated for the decreased property value for each property. He was unsure what the total dollar amount could be.
"Since they opened the plant, my people lost value in their homes and not only that, but I think it affected their safety and health,'' he said. "But the big thing we're going through now is, they lost the value of their homes."
Tarasi represents residents from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
He said many of those residents testified they experienced lowered property value because of appearance and health issues caused by WTI, which is located in East Liverpool.
He said many residents and scientific experts testified in depositions about the dust and odor since WTI opened.
Question
Justice Maureen O'Connor said the area is an industrial area and asked how the witnesses knew the dust and odor came specifically from WTI.
Columbus attorney Charles Waterman represented WTI before the court and said there was no real evidence the dust and odor came from WTI and not another nearby industry.
He said that upon cross-examination in the trial court, the witnesses could not be sure the problems were caused by WTI and never produced any studies to support their theories.
The case was originally filed in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court in January 1997. In May 2000, WTI filed for a summary judgment claiming there was no evidence the issues were caused by the incinerator.
The summary judgment was granted and the residents filed an appeal with the 7th District Court of Appeals in Youngstown. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
Waterman maintained before the Supreme Court that the residents did not have enough evidence and filed the appeal because they were upset about the summary judgment.
Tarasi said he introduced several pieces of evidence, including expert testimony and documents, but they were ignored by the trial and appellate courts.
"We have this document, which raises a red flag," he told the high court.
He said that during the trial court proceedings, WTI attorneys claimed the residents were producing allegations.
"But they were points of record," Tarasi said. "These are all evidence and the evidence was ignored."
Waterman told the high court WTI was operating within the government permits obtained for its operation.
"Whatever's going out the stack, the government has given permission to pollute?" Justice Paul Pfeifer asked, for clarification.
"Essentially yes," Waterman replied.
The high court took the matter under advisement and could release a decision later this year.