Where it's really needed.
Posted on 03/31/2009 7:58:09 AM PDT by RogerWilko
Why wait “a few years” to leave?
8.6 million for hitting a pig while drunk?
On the bright side, think how much they would’ve awarded him if he’d claimed to have hit a pink elephant.
This was a trial in state court, not federal court-- so the appeal is not to the 9th Circuit. The appeal will be to the california Court of Appeal and from there to the California Supreme Court.
On what do you base this claim? Is it anything beyond your feelings?
Perhaps in California and particularly in that part of the state there might be such an attitude. But in most parts of the country just the opposite seems to be the case. And if a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the law, the court can set it aside. Such an occurance happened in a trial I watched last year where a family riding motorcycles together were run over by a guy who drifted out of his lane going the opposite direction. The proof was clear who was at fault. the family was asking for no more than to provide for their medical treatments which were going to be needed for life for two of them. But a jackass baptist preacher on the jury who had lied during voir dire by saying he could award damages if warranted brow-beat the rest of the jury into finding no fault. His reasoning? that accident was god's will, and they had no business interfering with god's will.
When the verdict was announced the judge blew a gasket. He told the jury they had reached a verdict contrary to the facts and the law, and he wasn't going to wait for a motion to set aside the verdict, instead he directed the plaintiff's lawyer to get him that motion so he could sign it.
Juries are a bunch of idiots, usually. I'll grant you that. Thats why its the defense that requests a jury more and more, not the plaintiff.
the state made a big mistake by putting up those signs. By doing so they gave the impression that they should have known to do so sooner. Otherwise I don’t see how negligence by the state could be proven.
but as a matter of law, aren’t subsequent remedial measures inadmissible? If so, that should never have been admitted into evidence to the jury—didn’t they file any motions in limine?
About the same time he got the DWI, one of his best friends was killed while riding his Harley when a woman made a left turn across his lane. She couldn't see because there was a truck facing her in the opposite turn lane, but went anyway. She got a failure to yield citation and nothing else. That was just an accident.
So my friend can't leave the state and gets visits from a parole officer from time to time because he could have killed someone, and that lady is free because she did kill someone. Go figure.
Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures. —When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove strict liability, negligence, or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving controverted ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment.
Notice that subsequent remedial measures are not excluded in every instance. that may be where a clever lawyer earns his fee. I don't know what actually happened in this case.
i don't think that the guy should have got anything. I just don't see how the state has a duty to warn of movements of wild animals. But thats California for you.
Very similar to the TX rule. I’d be shocked if it weren’t universal (except maybe in LA).
I agree with you to an extent, but there must have been more than meets the eye here, otherwise you’d think the issue would have been tossed out on Summary Judgment. Who knows. Maybe there were previous incidents involving injuries, or some damanaging document found in discovery that made it look like the state knew there was a danger that it should have fixed.
The monetary award is significant, but not when you consider the guy’s medical bills and the fact that he was a pro athelete now paralyzed, and he’s only 45.
lawyer 1: so Mr. State Worker, when you later placed those signs warning of pigs crossing, isn't that an admission that you knew that this was a danger to the public?
lawyer 2: Objection! Rule 407, subsequent remedial measures...
judge: sustained
lawyer 1: apologies, your honor...
Its not in evidence, but the jury heard it anyway, and will probably take it into consideration.
yeah, the ol’ Matlock method. Works every time it’s tried. :)
Excellent post.
My wife an I will be able to retire, sell our house, then FLEE!
Where it's really needed.
of course i’m being overly simplistic. but you get the idea. besides it was probably in the local newspapers and tv since its such an odd case.
Brilliant - that’s a keeper!!!
That is one of the funniest stories I've ever read. First time I saw it I literally fell out of my chair laughing.
Nope...but they do have “Watch for Illegal Alien” signs...although they don’t actually say that.
“It’s BACON!!!”
That amount certainly does seem just a bit over the top. I wonder how much he’s actually going to get though? I’m sure the $8.6 million will first be used to pay his medical bills. If he’s in a wheelchair, no telling how much that was. And you know the lawyers are going to skim 1/3rd off the top. By the time it’s all said and done, he might be getting $100k. I know when my wife was in an accident many years ago, (other driver fell asleep and came across the road). She was in a coma for a week, hospitalized for a month, and was unable to work for 1/2 a year. After paying the hospital bills, and lawyer, she walked away with a whopping $23,000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.