blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Crazy Personal Injury Law

4.24.2009

Crazy Personal Injury Law

An emailer sent me a link to a commentary in the Houston Chronicle that began like this:
A Brownsville jury had hardly begun its second day of deliberations after a six-week trial when its forewoman sent a note to the judge that virtually guaranteed there would not be a third day. The issue was whether a Ford Explorer caused a tragic rollover accident because of faulty design. But the note did not deal with the testimony of competing experts. In only nine words it asked an unambiguous question: “What is the maximum amount that can be awarded?”
If you think that's amazing, the story behind it is more shocking.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Hope they get it sorted out.

However, what also caught my eye was this: "They quickly settled for $3 million before the jury could award the plaintiffs more. Of that amount, the plaintiffs’ attorneys would receive $1,982,726.10."
The lawyers got two-thirds of the amount awarded? Shee-it!

Anonymous said...

Doesn't apply to this subject but I tried to get online at home with no luck the recording says embarq is down for all of Texas somebody with a backhoe is in deep do do

Anonymous said...

And the Texas Supreme's overturned it. For all we hear about these awards does anybody actually know someone - not hearsay - that is receiving money from a jury award? I mean real money like a million dollars.

wordkyle said...

I'd venture to guess that there was some home schoolin' of the jury forewoman. She knew the exact wording to make the Ford lawyers scramble to settle. Not many laymen would know the phrase that pays.

Anonymous said...

I thought the dodo was extinct?
My science teacher is in deep doo doo.

chupacabra said...

"Jurors had to answer two questions. The first was whether the Explorer’s roof had a design defect that would cause an injury in a rollover. The second: Did it have a design defect “in the handling or stability” that caused the accident."

We ask a mob of uneducated mongotards who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty to solve a complex engineering problem and give them the power to wield multi million dollar judgments like a leaf blower and we are stunned, shocked and amazed this country is falling apart in front of our eyes.

I weep for the species.

Anonymous said...

Barry you bring up a good subject. And I know you do not make it a habit of commenting but ...

Would you excuse someone from your jury pool if you knew they posted on your Blog? If they were liberal or Conservative?

If they admitted it or if they didn't admit it and you knew? What would you do?

Would the Judge Crude conduct the trail differently if he didn't read your blog?

Would the prosecution strike or question someone from your Blog?

Anonymous said...

Opps Forgot one more question ...

Do you think your clients are getting a fair trial because of your Blog ?

Anonymous said...

My Answer to the Questions.

1) Yes to Conservative and No to Liberal.

2)Depends but more than likely nothing.You need all the help you can get.

3)Yes

4)Yes

5)Not just No but HELL NO !!!

Anonymous said...

Are Ford Explorers causing bad accidents by going out of control and rolling? I have this image of driving past a house with an empty Ford Explorer parked in the driveway, and then seeing it just rocket up into the air and spinning several times before crashing down roof first. All by itself. Seriously, won't almost ANY vehicle lock up and roll if handled in such a way as to cause it?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Ford's lawyers got bluffed and folded. I'd say too bad for them. You wanna play hard ball? You better be ready to play or accept the consequences of your decision.

Anonymous said...

The Valley is a horrible place to try a case if your client is a corporate defendant. That's just a fact. But my mom used to tell me that two wrongs don't make a right, and the frequency with which the Texas Supreme Court reverses ALL (o.k., only 97%) of money awards which reach them clearly demonstrates the agenda of those who have been contributing to the individual justices' campaigns and that's every bit as wrong. And 7:23 is dead on.