4 Things Jurors Never Hear
March 10, 2010
Folks on jury duty learn alot- trials take longer than the hour they do on TV, they are often slow and boring, and forensic science doesn’t give all the answers all of the time (Sorry CSI.) However, there are a lot of things the Jury in a civil case never hears. For example:
The Insurance Company controls the Case.
When you buy car insurance, mandatory here in Missouri, your insurer takes over once you have an accident. That is good for you, because you don’t want to be bothered. On the other hand, it also puts you at risk. If your insurance company refuses to settle with the person you hurt, YOU are the one who gets sued, even though the insurance company is paying your legal bills and the judgment- within limits. Let’s say you bought the minimum coverage, $25,000.00. If a jury renders a verdict against you for $30,000.00, you are on the hook for the difference over your coverage! If the insurance company had an opportunity to settle your claim for your policy limits or less and didn’t, they may owe you money for their bad faith refusal to settle, and they will have to pay the entire verdict amount, even if it exceeds your coverage.
Jurors are never told that the insurance company is in control of the case, and the insurer decide whether the case settles or not. They only hear that the defendant did wrong- and that the victim is somehow at fault for suing.
If the Defendant was on the job, the Company has to pay the verdict against him.
If the defendant in a civil case was at work when he got into a wreck or hurt someone, he may get sued- again, that depends on the insurance company. But it is rare for that individual defendant to have to pay damages from a lawsuit. Employers, even municipalities, have to indemnify (pay the bills) when their employees harm someone while working.
Verdicts get reduced by the judge if someone else paid for their share of the damages.
In a situation where two defendants combine to cause damage, one of them will often do the right thing and pay for their responsible share, leaving the other to go to court. Jurors are told that one of the wrongdoers paid for their fault, but are often left to guess whether the injury victim has been fully compensated or not. When one defendant settles, the amount of the settlement is subtracted from the jury verdict by the judge. This keeps the victim from getting a double recovery. Unfortunately, Jurors often try to subtract a settlement from a verdict as well, resulting in a double subtraction.
Some important evidence is never heard.
Lawyers and courts are governed by rules, and these rules sometimes hold important information out of the jurors’ consideration. Whether someone has insurance, payment of medical bills and even certain expert opinions never come out in court.
Our system is not a perfect one, but as the old saying goes, it is way better than the next best one.
Questions or Comments? Visit http://farrislaw.net, or call The S.E. Farris Law Firm, without cost or obligation at 314.A.LAWYER (314.252.9937) or toll free at 866.955.LAWS (5297)
It is only Lawsuit Abuse when Injury Victims Sue, Right?
October 27, 2009
This blog isn’t really about personal injury law. It is, however, another poke in the eye of fake watchdog groups whose only REAL intention is to protect corporate profits at the expense of individual rights.
When it comes to calling a hypocrite a hypocrite, few do it better than Jim Hightower. Seems the “watchdog” group Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) are asleep at the switch. Or more likely, out kicking puppies.
Hansen Beverage, maker of Monster energy drinks, is suing a tiny Vermont brewer for its Vermonster beer brand. Evidently, we consumers are too stupid to realize that Vermonster Beer is not an energy drink!
But more importantly, why is Philip Morris funded Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse not incensed? Outraged? Nope. Nothing.
Consumer outrage did bring Hansen’s suit to a screeching halt. In fact, Rock Art Brewery is asking folks to stop bugging Hansen. CALA is way ahead of the curve- they never started! It is only lawsuit abuse when a BIG company is sued, after all.
Toyota’s Idea of Safety- Hide Incriminating Documents?
October 16, 2009
A federal judge’s order sheds new light on what Toyota Motor Corporation is fighting to keep hidden, according to Todd Tracy, a Dallas vehicle safety legal expert. The documentation order issued by U.S. District Judge T. John Ward reveals that Toyota’s former in-house lawyer for rollover cases gave the judge a 40-page internal memorandum that is apparently so explosive that only the judge is allowed to keep it.
According to Tracy, ”The court sent a clear message that you cannot trust a fox like Toyota to guard the henhouse. “
Toyota’s ex-litigator, Dimitrios Biller, turned over the boxes in question to Judge Ward in a Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) case filed by Tracy. Tracy is attempting to reopen 17 Toyota accident cases in the wake of Biller’s allegations that the Japanese automaker destroyed and hid evidence from hundreds of accident victims in court.
Judge Ward ordered that the remaining documents are to be independently copied, numbered and coded with a security mark. The digital images of the documents will be stored on a secure computer database accessed by a tracking log and restricted to inspection by Toyota’s in-house counsel and its counsel of record. The judge prohibited Toyota’s legal team from bringing any type of copying device, camera, PDA, or recording device to inspect the documents.
Tracy says Toyota cranked out disinformation about his motions to protect the documents. Toyota in a statement on its corporate website claimed that, “. . .Mr. Tracy was satisfied with the procedures Toyota already had in place to maintain documents relevant to the case.” In fact, Tracy was alarmed that Toyota might try to copy Biller’s documents in order to replace ones that had been destroyed. “I didn’t want to let the fox back into the henhouse to clean-up the feathers.”
Toyota’s response to Tracy’s RICO suit engages in character assassination against Biller in order to cover-up the real issue in this case, according to Tracy. “Toyota’s attack mode mentality just shows this fox has fangs for its critic. I don’t know who writes this fiction inside Toyota’s PR Department, but it’s filled with so many side-steps that Toyota’s CEO should be a contestant on Dancing with the Stars.”
The case, Lopez et al vs. Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Christopher Reynolds, Jane Howard Martin, Eric Taira, and Dian Ogilvie, is currently pending in The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas Marshall Division; Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-292. I wonder if this will make the list of “frivolous” lawsuits touted by insurers and manufacturers. Probably not!