1. i draw a huge distinction between this and the Pinto case...the Pinto case was "turn the key and blow up." this is a bit more of an activity that involves assuming some risk...you're running and diving on to the product. i'm betting the product wasn't being used properly, either, in those circumstances. 2. what safety features were added? 3. i'm not saying i want to get rid of these cases entirely...but i do believe people assume some risk on their own....particularly with an activity like this. without knowing all of the facts in the cases mentioned, i can't give a final conclusion one way or the other.
So the product is safe for kids but not for adults? If I can't use it, I sure as hell don't want my kids using it either. Also, I think it likely that Connie Chung neglected to mention the man's drunkenness. It would not be in the best interests of the company to lie in a submission to the court about something so easily verifiable. And, I don't find it too unreasonable to think there were 8 stupid and/or drunk adults who managed to hurt themselves on this thing through their own negligence. I don't really see the 'other side' of this one.
I am inferring from reports that a warning has been added, as well as bumper at the end to prevent the kind of overshooting the end that was otherwise prevalent. However, I'm inferring from something I saw or read, and don't have anything on it. Don't have time to look for it, either, right now. I'd love to read a good law review article on the topic, with appropriate cites to cases, and cases available for reading. While there is such a thing as a jury going bananas, the judge is there to deal with that problem, and he has two levels of judges above him to make sure he followed the law, too. If most of us sat through the trial, we probably would have agreed with the jury that made the award. Companies like to behave like the injured party, but they usually cover up all the bad acting they have been guilty of. This was a problem they knew about, didn't fix, and hid. That is what got a big verdict, that and a quad paralyzed from the waist down.
That brief bit you posted talked of a settlement. Doesn't sound like there was a jury to make an award. Or was the Wisconsin man mentioned in the press release different than the dude in the Connie Chung article?
here is from the story which ran nationwide: compare that to the article about Connie Chung: How to reconcile? Remember what I said about the jury verdict being a basis for the judgment, and about judgment being entered, and about appeals being taken? Well, even cases that are tried OFTEN end up in a settlement, and that is clearly what happened here. A jury gave a big verdict, and some time thereafter, the case got settled by the parties. This is very common, and a confidentiality agreement is OFTEN part of it. Settlements USUALLY occur before trial, but it ain't over 'til it's over, and a good litigator has a lot of moves left after the jury is long gone. First, there's a JNOV, judgment non obstanto verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Then there's the Motion for New Trial, which the judge can grant without even giving a reason. Then there's the motion for judgment on verdict, and that can exclude certain findings, including damages. Then there's the possibility of remittitur, which remits (or eliminates) part of the damages found by the jury. And that's just at the trial level, after verdict, before or at entry of judgment. After than, there's still the appeals, which can take years. And if there is error found on appeal, guess what? You may have to try it again, start all over. I WISH trying cases was as easy and certain as it's made out to be. I know how to do it, but I always tell clients "don't leave your future up a jury or judge - settle at a number you can live with." Juries punish arrogant, offensive, or unrepentant defendants and their attorneys. I was in a case once where I settled the case against MY malpractice defendant for about 300 grand. I knew the hospital lawyers (another defendant) were going to piss off the jury, and I didn't want any part of it. They got hit for 7 million. It was a child who was stuck at age 1 because a doctor injected air into a vein. I knew it was a bad case, and I knew that my codefendants would infuriate the jury. So I got out first and I got out cheap. Had another one, back in the 80s, involved a load of pipe shifting on a truck, huge pipe. Load comes off, pipe crashes through front of car, severing dad's legs mid thigh, and pinning him there. His teenage son watched him bleed to death before help arrived. I got out before trial for a half million. A co-defendant stayed in and got hit for $3.5 million. I'm giving these examples because I want people to understand that the insurance/defense side gets hit big sometimes because they are hard-headed, foolish, greedy, and refuse to take responsibility. Juries hate that in anyone, and they punish those who do so. When you've been a part of the defense bar like I have, you understand that there are many insurance companies and insurance defense attorneys who hurt themselves by treating this like its some kind of holy war. We are cogs in economic machinery, not soldiers on the front lines of the free market. Law should be about the thoughtful resolution of civil disputes.
Your explanation of a settlement coming after the jury award is apparently the case: http://www.campionrodolff.com/news0700.htm The relevant text: At trial, the plaintiff's attorney made much of the fact that Kransco had reintroduced the Slip 'N Slide knowing it had caused serious injuries and had then, arguably, tried to hide those earlier injuries. The jury awarded the plaintiff $12.3 million, which was reduced by a settlement to $7.5 million. I just made an assumption, mostly based on the fact that the Connie piece didn't even mention a trial or a jury award, just the settlement.
thanks for checking it out. I expected a settlement in that range. A lot of times, the plaintiff's attorney is trying to get punitives in order to up the ante for post-trial settlement negotiations. If you win a 12.7 mil verdict, odds are you can settle for at least half that to stop any further appeal or action on the case. Insurers almost always lay the groundwork for appeal, go through every step needed to perfect the appeal, then pursue it. Appeals are a royal pain in the azz, and most lawyers don't really know how to do them. You really need a specialist. I used to handle appeals, but about 10 years ago, I started using experts at appeals. At some point in the post verdict phase, the parties try to get it settled. Sometimes, there is even a mediator called in to help. Here's how it goes down. 1. jury verdict for 12.7 mil 2. post trial procedures begin 3. parties simultaneously negotiate to settle. 4. the judge can retain jurisdiction for several months without doing much of anything. judges don't like to get reversed on appeal, and the best way to not get reversed is to have your post trial cases settle out. So judges "help" the parties get there sometimes by "suggesting" what the judge might rule (or not) on pending post trial motions. if the judge gets the lawyers and parties properly scared and guessing, the case gets settled. 5. parties decide to settle, but defendant wants a confidentiality agreement and to seal the evidence in the case. in this case, they settled on 7.5 million. However, I will hasten to add that the payout may have been over time. That's very common, and the current value of such a deal might be half the total. In cases involving the seriously injured, annuities that pay a certain amount per year for a certain number of years are common, and of course, those have a current value or cost much less than the total.
But you said earlier you hate lawyers. Why do something that makes you hate yourself? That can't be good for your self esteem .
I don't really care for lawyers, either. I socialize with almost no lawyers any more. The truth is I don't wanna sit around with lawyers because many of them are annoying and obsessed with material things.
Amen. I don't even talk to my own brother anymore for those reasons. Or was that a movie quote? But still.
i'm not trying to pat myself on the back here...but I think I practice law different than most other lawyers do. i love the practice of law...i love my practice. but like FF said, i find most lawyers unbearable...i'm fortunate enough to work with 3 incredible people i practice with...including my partner who is just an amazing person.
