Here is part one of the speech everyone has been talking about. Here is part two.
Joint and Several Liability Abolished in Florida
Joint and several liability has been abolished in the State of Florida. Here is a copy of the bill, courtesy of Matt at Abstract Appeal.
Making a Record
Here is another case out of our appellate courts that reminds us of the need to make a record.
Plaintiff failed to object to the introduction of certain medical records in a personal injury case. The defendant read excerpts of those records to the jury to establish the existance of a pre-existing condition. Citing Grandstaff v. Hawks, the Eastern Section of our Court of Appeals said “[o]bjections to the introduction of evidence must be timely and specific. … A party who invites or waives error, or who fails to take reasonable steps to cure an error, is not entitled to relief on appeal. Failure to object [to] evidence in a timely and specific fashion precludes taking issue on appeal with the admission of the evidence.”
The Court found that Plaintiff did offer an objection to the method of introduction of the pre-incident prescription records of the plaintiff, i.e. a paralegal read from a summary of records from five different pharmacies. However, on this issue the Court used the familiar “abuse of discretion” rule to uphold the decision of the trial judge.
Collateral Source Rule Applies to Lawyers
A lawyer was hurt in a wreck and received injuries that limited his work hours. He was a partner is a law firm and continued to receive his regular compensation despite his failure to work and bill the required number of hours. The judge did not permit the defendant to tell the jury that the lawyer received his normal compensation. The jury awarded money for lost of income and defendant appealed.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed, stating “[h]owever criticized, maligned or debatable the application of the collateral source rule may be in this case, it is not within our province to depart from established California law and we decline to do so.” The case includes a nice discussion of the public policy supporting the rule.
The case is Smock v. State of California, (A107532, A108413 Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dis., Div. 3 4/18/06). You can read it here.
Off This Weekend
No posts this weekend. I haven’t taken a break for a while, and I have to work Sunday to prepare for an argument on a major motion Monday morning.
Death of Charlie Williams
A great man and a great trial lawyer died on April 27, the day before his 62nd birthday.
Charlie Williams was a true believer in “the cause.” He used his passion for the law to help people in need. He cared about his community and served on many boards and commissions to improve the world around him.
I last spoke with Charlie two weeks ago Thursday afternoon. He called about an issue he had with a case and that grew in to a conversation about the state of our nation. The conversation ended with a discussion about his wonderful daughter and law partner, Annie B. Charlie was (rightfully) proud of his daugher; his face would glow whenever her name was mentioned.
“Error of Judgment” Rule in Legal Malpractice Cases
The Kentucky Supreme Court has recently modified the law concerning the application of the “error of judgment” rule in legal malpractice cases.
In Equitania Insurance Conmpany v. Slone & Garrett, P.S.C., 2003-SC-1003-DG (2/23/06). The Court described the case as follows: “This case is a complex legal malpractice claim brought by Vimont against Garrett alleging that she negligently advised them during the midst of the shareholder dispute. They claim that Garrett negligently failed to properly advise them as to how to retain control of the corporation; that the methods she advised violated the insurance code ; violated a fiduciary duty to shareholders; was unethical, and was substantially more expensive.”
The jury was given this instruction:
Smoke Detectors
What happens when your smoke detector fails to work?
Plaintiffs bought two smoke detectors for their home. According to The Business Review, “The detectors at issue were ionization type smoke detectors that sense high temperature, fast moving fires, as opposed to detectors employing photoelectric cells which are better at detecting smoldering fires, like the one which apparently killed” two members of the the plaintiffs’ family. “A photoelectric smoke detector would detect the smoke from a fire 15 minutes earlier than the ionization type …”
“During the trial the jury heard from witnesses who testified that the company was aware of the shortcomings of the ionization only detector but continued to market the product instead of selling only dual detectors. The dual detectors cost from $20 to $25 while the ionization only types sell for $10 to $15.”
Vioxx – What Merck Should Do Now.
An analysis by Forbes.
The title says it all: “Merck’s got to keep fighting.”