I was in court all week trying a case that resulted in a 5.5 million dollar verdict against the party I was defending and the other defendant. Its not as bad as it sounds for me, since my real goal was to keep the other defendant in the case, as I truly believe its driver was the real cause of the accident.
Plaintiff was in a pickup truck struck by an 18-wheeler driver by my defendant's employee when it when left of center to avoid another 18 wheeler turning left at a rural crossroads. The jury verdict was 4 million for him and 1.5 for his wife. This is the largest personal injury verdict ever in my county. The verdict is excessive and I believe it was the result of the other defendant's lawyer making things worse rather than better for his client. He could have settled for 1/2 million before trial and probably less.
The verdict was partially the result of my destruction of the co-defendant's traffic safety expert on cross examination. I chose the word destruction carefully, when I was done there was no real doubt that the co-defendant was at fault. They should have admitted their responsibility and tried the case on damages and not annoyed the jury.
The testimony was that when the co-defendant driver turned there was a car in front of my defendant. That car was traveling at 45 mph and had to come to a complete stop. My defendant was unable to stop without hitting the car in front and couldn't go right because of a drainage canal on the side of the road and the turning truck.
"Big Trucking Co" decided that meant they were not responsible.
The jury disagreed.
Five million five hundred dollars or what my week was like.
-
themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Five million five hundred dollars or what my week was like.
Suitguy is not bitter.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.