Jury award = $1,000,000,000.00

[EagleRJ]

This is why we spend more on everyday products than we need to, and why prescription drugs cost so much.

A jury just awarded one family $1 Billion for the death of their mother, which the lawyers attributed to taking Phen-Fen pills.

Now who's more likely to impliment tort reform- Bush or Kerry?

 

[wessidmike]

people need to stop sueing everyone and go out and earn your living. STOP BEING SO F**KING LAZY

 

[chperplt]

What I thought was interesting was that she was morbidly obese with numerous health issues before and after the phen-fen diet she was on. The judge wouldn't let the defense talk about her other medical problems to the jury...

She was morbidly obese and had hypertension ... and she died... Go figure.

 

[jarhead]

I have no huge love for lawyers, but this news item seems to be one of a jury run amok. You know, average stupid Americans, making determinations.....much like the jury that let O.J. off the hook

 

[legaleagle]

Hopefully this will be appealed if the judge does not reduce it on his own for being completely outrageous. There is a case referred to as "State Farm" which is now the theme that is prevalent in the final outcome of tort actions. It says that there must be a reasonable nexus between actual damages and punitive damages. Excessive damages will be thrown out. Hopefully a step in the right direction.


http://www.bostonbar.org/pub/bbj/bbj0102_04/case_damages.htm

The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court first reiterated that due process prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tortfeasor, and then elaborated on the three “guideposts” enunciated in BMW v. Gore: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct; (2) the ratio between the actual or potential harm suffered by plaintiff and the punitive damages awarded; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages award and the civil or, in some cases, criminal penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

 

[pilotman2105]

Just another example of people refusing to take responsibility for their actions. As soon as people realize that what they do may have a future consequence, things like this will stop. However, as long as they realize that there is a dollar sign at the end, look for more bizzare and bigger settlements to come.

 

[mar]

Legaleagle

Do you have an opinion on the concept of professional jurors?

Seems to me like a professional jury would be less influenced by showmanship and consider the facts more.

In other words: DNA evidence is much more persuasive than the catchy mantra, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

I haven't made up my mind. Just looking for another opinion.

Thanks.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I think that pretty much already exists in the form of a bench trial...judge serves as jury.

Plaintiffs don't go for it because the judge is more knowledgable to the relevance of evidence and testimony and more likely to see through the lawyer BS than a jury.

 

[legaleagle]

Professional jurors, while great in concept, lose one thing, impartiality. I agree a concept like that would be great. But, you can't get 6-12 people that for every case, will not have some sort of an opinion. That is what the voire dire, or jury selection process is intended to weed out, bias. Doesn't always work that way unfortunately.

But, this along with McDonald's taking away value meals as a result of impending litigation, is another sign, that people just can't take responsibility for their own actions, and then love to look for deep pockets elsewhere, when they haven't made their million through hard work.

 

[Vector4fun]

The article I read yesterday said this will most definately be appealed, and most knowledgeable observers say the award will be reduced considerably in the end. Of course, that fact won't make much news.

One other fact as I recall. The woman died some 4 years after she stopped taking the drug? This was either a jury or judge out of control. Lots of facts were never allowed into evidence, so say the defendants.

 

[mar]

Legaleagle

Thanks for the response. Though, I was kinda workin' along the lines that a professional jury would be more impartial than average Joe Sixpack.

Seems the professional would look at the data and make a decision based on training.

Joe Sixpack looks at the data and thinks, Boy if I were that person I'd love to receive an award for my "suffering."

So it becomes a vicarious experiece for the juror.

But I agree, people don't take responsibility for their actions (for various reasons).

Don't take this personally but of course shrewd lawyers are part of the problem.

For example (steering discussion towards aviation) a little old woman looses her husband in an airplane crash. She has bills to pay and since he provided for her she's now lost her support.

She's *deserves* something--I think we all agree.

So she contacts a lawyer and Mr. Lawyer (being a good lawyer) sues everyone! Aircraft manufacturer, Airport Management, Fuel Manufacturer and the Weather Reporter.

Jury finds most of the fault with, say, aircraft manufacturer. And Bingo! Old woman is instantly rich. And of course Mr. Lawyer is a little richer too.

The little old woman never dreamt of being so rich. And she certainly never had any concept of product liability in her head. She just wanted to pay her bills.

I have a hard time faulting people for consulting a lawyer when they need some assistance (financial or otherwise). But god dang, some of you guys can actually get blood out of a rock!

 

[Crizz]

Mar, I have to respectfully submit that your example is a relatively isolated situation. Even put into different context (than aviation) it still represents a small minority of lawsuits.

Lets call a spade a spade here. Certain people will maximize trauma to their own financial (and egotistical) gains. Period.

 

[mar]

I agree, "certain" people will.

Yeah, you bet! There are scam artists everywhere.

But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's the lawyers who are primarily the ones who need to be reined in.

For example: Years ago I was in a car accident (T-boned by a drunk that ran a red). I was knocked out, fractured my clavicle, needed a skin graft on my ear and had a large cut on my neck (40 stitches).

I had medical expenses (deductible) and lost wages from work.

I got a lawyer and told him I wanted my bills paid for and my wages back. That's it.

He begins the interview by asking about my injuries and the fact I'm a pilot. He wants to know about my hearing and my vision--things that a very important for a pilot.

I told him they're fine. He kept pushing. I knew what he wanted to do. I held my ground and told him there's nothing wrong with my hearing and vision.

I just wanted my bills paid for and my wages back. And of course whatever would cover his fee.

Long story short: I got $25,000 *after* he took his 33.3%!!!

All for my suffering, etc, etc...

And I just got banged around a little.

So yeah, another person may have moaned and groaned and pretended to be on their way to his maker but I still don't absolve the lawyer for trying to make mountains out of molehills.

 

[Cosmo1999]

Lets call a spade a spade here. Certain people will maximize trauma to their own financial (and egotistical) gains. Period.

which is why we must limit the amount juries can award people for this kind of thing. Putting a cap on lawsuits will save a ton of money. People can just settle for the maximum if the defense doesnt think they can win and not bother wasting tax money on a trial and let our courts do more useful things. A lot of money is also saved since you have less appeals Also outlaw lawsuits on certain things like being too fat cause of mcdonalds.. If you dont wanna get fat then eat healthy its not rocket science.. Of course with the Trial lawyers lining the pockets of the democrats it will never happen. Not until the ratio of republican/democrat goes down in the house more..

 

[jetexas]

We will ALL pay for ludicrous jury awards such as this. Rising medical bills, medicine costs, insurance, etc... something these these moronic juries don't seem to realize.

 

[Crizz]

Yah... every man, woman, and child in the United States is going to cut a check to this lady for about $3.50.

Dam I cant hardly afford to buy my friends a beer for $2 let alone pay this deadbeat.

 

[Cosmo1999]

ahhhh but if we keep getting these type of awards dished out then that number starts multiplying, again it must be limited....

 

[jetexas]

Now who's more likely to impliment tort reform- Bush or Kerry?

Wellll... Trial Lawyers are one of the biggest contributors the Democratic party has. I sure doubt Kerry would do anything about the problem.

Bush doesn't seem to be doing anything either.
It is nuts though..this lawsuit society. Nobody trusts anyone anymore with all this "Robin Hood & Lottery" lawsuit stuff. It's surely not helping to "better" our society.

I don't expect any changes anytime soon. Most, if not all, politicans come from a "law" background. It would be like a cop giving another cop a ticket to stop the rampant abuses. It will probably have to be a grass roots effort in my opinion.
There are organizations out there already for lawsuit abuse reform.

 

[legaleagle]

Mar, I agree, people should be compensated to a degree. And, you are right, punitive awards are way out of hand! Case and Point, Cessna and Parker, an award given when it was clear there was no fault on the part of either. Gen Rule in a case like that is that you can use NTSB evidence as long as it is factual finding. You can't go into the realm of their findings (which are opinions). That is the only way I can figure that they won, as the facts would show that the vaccum pump or gyro failed (I think it was the latter). But, the plaintiff got to bring in evidence that Parker had 20 other failures over the past 15 years, which I think should have been barred, just like rules of evidence bar past sexual conduct of rape victims. Why should we taint the jury with past problems. Does it automatically mean someone is guilty this time. NO. This whole case sucked, including the mother, who said her only motivation was to vindicate her son of responsibility. Even though she kept pushing for an award afterward. Furthermore, not that I am superpilot, but, it sounds like he couldn'tfly partial panel that well. Failures are part of life, but the the responsibility to fly under that condition falls on the pilot, regardless of what the mother says. She really sucks.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Now who's more likely to impliment tort reform- Bush or Kerry?

Ha! Neither. I'd like to see a convincing argument for either. Good luck.