Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 106
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Court opinion:
Haley is rear-ended by Kruti.* Haley suffers severe neurological symptoms, and is diagnosed with concussion and cervical and lumbar disk herniation.
Haley sues Kruti. Kruti concedes liability for the crash, leaving for the jury to decide only liability for the injury and damages resulting from the injury. Due to evidence issues, the judge excludes past medical expenses from damages that can be awarded, but Haley's expert witness estimates future medical expenses at 393 k$. The jury decides that Kruti caused the injury, but awards to Haley future medical expenses of only 16 k$, and awards absolutely zero damages for Haley's pain and suffering.
The appeals panel affirms the award of 16 k$ for future medical expenses, but vacates and remands for a new trial regarding pain and suffering. It is against the weight of the evidence for the jury to find that Kruti is liable for medical expenses but not for the pain and suffering on which those medical expenses logically must be predicated.
*It isn't clear from the names, but they're both women. (Should I have typed Haley (♀) and Kruti (♀) instead of adding this footnote? I think I saw somebody suggest many years ago that such a practice might be preferable to specifying pronouns. ;-) )
There was a case in Allegheny County earlier this year in a similar vein, though it wasn't of the type to result in an opinion. A woman with cancer sued Johnson & Johnson claiming that their talcum powder contained asbestos. Plaintiff's counsel is a highly aggressive national plaintiff's firm out of Texas who regularly engage in questionable practices just to piss off defendants. They drive a hard bargain and aren't afraid to take a case to verdict. I actually sat in on this one for a few hours while I was at the courthouse attending to another matter, but I'm not familiar enough with the evidence to speculate on how the jury reached their conclusion. Anyway, per the verdict slip, the jury found that J&J's talcum powder did indeed contain asbestos, but that the Plaintiff had insufficiently proven that exposure to the powder caused her illness. The jury accordingly awarded $0 in compensatory damages. However, because they still thought J&J acted poorly, they tacked on $16 million in punitive damages. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, since you can't receive punitive damages if the defendant isn't liable, she walked away with nothing, and the aggressive Plaintiff's firm who was used to winning just blew a couple hundred grand litigating a defense verdict that would have netted them millions if the jury had awarded a dollar for compensation.
The case you posted is an interesting one because it illustrates the difference between the way a case looks on paper and the way it presents in the courtroom. Haley was in an accident that the defendant unquestionably caused. She testified that the symptoms started immediately after the accident, sought medical treatment within a few days, was given a diagnosis, and has continually sought treatment over the succeeding years. There are objective diagnostic findings. The defense put forth incompetent experts. The plaintiffs got the testimony of treating physicians (rare), and had experts who were able to testify as to damages.
Yet the jury only awarded a fraction of the damages the Plaintiff asked for, and didn't award anything for pain and suffering. I looked Haley up, and she is a somewhat large young woman. I'm guessing she presented on the stand as overly dramatic, and that the jury didn't believe the damage evidence that she played sports in high school and worked out regularly and was depressed that she couldn't do these things anymore. There was also the testimony that suggests it was a relatively minor collision and not of the type where one would expect serious ongoing medical problems. They probably felt like since she wasn't at fault and obviously experienced some kind of injury she should get some money for the aggravation, but not enough to really mean anything, and they just skipped the pain and suffering part because, as the opinion notes, the jury doesn't have to award pain and suffering for the typical kinds of aggravation everyone experiences. In other words, girl gets in minor car crash, claims major injuries, okay, the other person was liable, but seriously? Except they don't know how to properly express this on the jury form and they end up giving the Plaintiff another bite at the apple. If they had awarded $12,000 in future expenses and $4,000 in pain and suffering then the verdict would be much harder to challenge.
I'm pretty defensive of the legal system here, because it usually works better than people give it credit for, but I'm not so in the bag for it that I don't realize that a system run by lawyers and judges gets us a system that works well for lawyers and judges. We spend so much time immersed in this stuff that it's easy to forget that people out in the real world don't have a clue about any of this and will do things that make sense to them but not to the court, which is a big problem when we're relying on them to make important decisions. I wouldn't have a problem with instructions that explained to the jury that yes, this can be second guessed by a court, and here are the reasons a court will second guess it. Saying someone suffered injuries resulting in thousands of dollars in medical treatment but didn't experience any pain and suffering beyond what is comparable to being sore for a few days doesn't make sense, and a court won't let it stand. Saying that the defendant didn't cause the plaintiff's injury but the defendant did bad stuff so they should pay anyway doesn't make sense, and a court won't let it stand. We fight over these jury instructions so much that we end up with something that might not make sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link