The usual: hoodie, earbuds, running across the tracks without looking, etc.: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/02/jury-awards-15-million-after-max-train-severs-leg-of-pedestrian-wearing-hoodie-and-maybe-earbuds.html
"The amount Andrea “Amy” Laing actually will receive could possibly range from as little as $682,800 or to as much as $8.7 million....Jurors found TriMet 43 percent at fault, the MAX operator 15 percent at fault and Laing 42 percent at fault."
charlie hebdo"The amount Andrea “Amy” Laing actually will receive could possibly range from as little as $682,800 or to as much as $8.7 million....Jurors found TriMet 43 percent at fault, the MAX operator 15 percent at fault and Laing 42 percent at fault."
I find the jury 100% at fault!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I'm not too thrilled about the jury's award either, but I'm not sure of any other reasonable options. As an aside, I consider contingency fees for the attorneys to be an inherent conflict of interest.
CSSHEGEWISCHI'm not too thrilled about the jury's award either, but I'm not sure of any other reasonable options. As an aside, I consider contingency fees for the attorneys to be an inherent conflict of interest.
Without contingency lawyers, most of us would not have the finances to seek compensation if and when circumstances that are not our fault harm us. We would not have the resources to do anything other than accept the compensation, if any, that is offered by the injuring party (insurance company or actual individual). In the guilded days of the Robber Barons, mere mortals did not have the resources to contest the actions of the Barons and thereby paid the ultimate human price to enrich the Barons.
While I find some of these injury settlements outrageous, contingency attorneys put up their time and resources in persuing the case, without asking for their customer to front the money to put everything in motion. When the case is won, they share in the proceeds; when they lose all the time an money spent on the case is lost - in some jurisdictions they may have to pay court costs and the costs of the opposition in the case.
Hopefully the rail line counter sues her or at least appeals this verdict. Let's not forget that all of us pay for it in the form of higher prices that the business now needs to charge to make up for the loss and for the cost of taking measures to prevent more accidents like this. Making a business as idiot proof as possible costs alot of money.. and that cost gets passed on to all consumers (including the ones who aren't idiots). Next time you wonder why stores markup 100% to 300%.. that's a big part of the reason. Sooner or later a halfwit on a skateboard is going to hurt himself in the store's parking lot.. and it will be the store's fault.
I know some law professors from my working days before retirement. I was surprised that several of them said the country would be better off if all civil cases were handled by arbitration, with several steps of appeal being offered but all still arbitrated. Their thinking is (1) modern legal issues have gotten too complicated (which also makes them far more expensive) for almost all jurors, and (2) plaintiff lawyers just are too good at both picking and working a jury so normally the defendent does not have much chance. And being a major corporation is actually a major handicapp in today's legal atmosphere. Especially when the jury pool is mainly made up of less educated members which is now very common. It didn't take me long to observe Plaintiff attorneys #1 target to keep off a jury was anyone who had a successful background. They also liked as many women and minorities as possible since they usually identify with victims.
My late wife was picked for jury duty various times and she was often amazed at the women she served with that were always ready to award unbelievable amounts of money because they felt sorry for the plaintiff. We had another female friend that told us she lost it during one jury deliberation when some women wanted to hand out a six figure award to a woman who claimed she had suffered a bad scar in an accident when she drove her car into a train. Testimony showed she had been drinking and the scar was totally from a previous auto acident. But the other women on the jury wanted to give her big bucks anyway because they felt sorry for her. The jury was split for about 7 hours before the other women finally relented to just giving her medical expenses which were only a few thousand for what Medicaid didn't cover. Our friend didn't think she deserved anything but that was the only way they could reach a verdict.
I don't see any pedestrian gates in the Video. Anyone think they would have prevented this or affected the outcome of the suit?
I was summoned for jury duty over 10 times and only served once. I always wore a suit and tie and I believe that's why I was only picked once!
I was also summoned multiple times but when the plantiff lawyers saw what I did for a living (and one time my level of education) they always dismissed me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.