The Donald (as in Trump, not Duck) has sued Timothy O’Brien and Warner Books, alleging that he has been defamed a book written and published by the defendants.
Apparently, Donald believes that the defendants have falsely claimed that he exaggerated his wealth.
The book is called “TrumpNation.”
A Washington state court judge has entered a default judgment against Hyundai for failure to give accurate information concerning past claims.
Read more here.
The plaintiff alleged that she had a head injury arising out of a vehicle wreck and filed suit. The defense had her examined by a neuropsychologist under Virginia rules of court and she later sued him.
This is how the Court described Plaintiff Harris’ allegations: “Dr. Kreutzer “verbally abused [Harris], raised his voice to her, caused her to break down into tears in his office, stated she was ‘putting on a show,’ and accused her of being a faker and malingerer. Harris [also] contends that despite his knowledge of her condition, Dr. Kreutzer ‘intentionally aggravated her pre-existing condition and her post-traumatic stress disorder and her brain injury.’ Further, Harris also contends Dr. Kreutzer breached his duty to her in the conduct of the Rule 4:10 examination because he ‘failed to comply with the applicable standard of care within his profession in that he: a. failed to appropriately examine and evaluate the mental status of the plaintiff . . . and d. was deliberately abusive to plaintiff with disregard for the consequences of his conduct.’ As a result, Harris claims her mental and physical health ‘drastically deteriorate[d].'”
The trial court dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed dismissal of the medical negligence case, first saying that “b]y bringing her personal injury action, Harris gave her implied consent to the Rule 4:10 [similar to TRCP 35]examination and formed a limited relationship with Dr. Kreutzer for purposes of the examination. A physician or health care provider, such as Dr. Kreutzer, who performs a Rule 4:10 examination, expressly consents to a relationship with the examinee when he agrees to conduct the examination. Therefore, we conclude there is a consensual relationship between the physician and the examinee as patient for the performance of the Rule 4:10 examination.”
You would think that I would react differently.
After all, I am 49 years old. I have practiced law for over 24 years. I paid my way to college and law school mowing lawns, delivering newspapers, and sacking groceries. I supplemented those earnings with work as a meat cutter, a dishwasher, and a bartender. I actually managed a bar for my two years of college; I hired and tried to keep a staff of some 25 bartenders. I worked as the owner’s representative for a real estate developer on a construction site for one summer, and worked for a mobile home manufacturer for two summers. In those jobs I interacted with people in every walk of life in a wide variety of situations.
I have seen a lot of wonderful things and a lot horrible things in my law practice.
I have written about the finger-in-the-chili case several times, including this post , and this one, and this one.
Now, Anna and her husband have been sentenced to nine years in prison. Read more here.
I said early on that if this woman (or anyone else) falsifies a claim in an effort to get money they deserve some jail time. And I still believe it. But I think nine years is outrageous, especially when one weighs that sentence against the time other criminals have received for crimes I consider to have imposed a far greater impact on society.
Here is a decision that reminds us about the law of arguing damages. The decision – from Florida but true in Tennessee – holds that it is reversible error to refer to assets of the defendant in trying to communicate to the jury how to determine damages for pain and suffering.
It is nice to get a big verdict. But is better to get one you can keep. And that means you should know and follow the law of argument.
I wrote a post the other day about the efforts by the FDA to limit lawsuits by consumers injured by drugs.
Here is an update.
No substantive post today. I went to Knoxville last night to attend a mediation today (Thursday) of a case I am involved in Maryville.
The case did not get resolved but I enjoyed getting to spend some time with my co-counsel (from Seattle) and our client.
The Missouri Court of Appeals has reversed a jury verdict entered in favor of a brain damaged woman and her husband. The two argued a 1993 Cutlass had a defective cruise control which caused a wreck that injured the woman.
The appellate court held that the trial judge should not have permitted 139 prior incident into evidence because they were not sufficiently similar to the accident at issue. The court also ruled that punitive damages were not appropriate in the case. (Under Missouri law, “punitive damages are appropriate, therefore, only when the defendant’s conduct is outrageous due to evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence”.)
Importantly, however, the appellate court did hold that the plaintiffs presented “evidence that Mrs. Peter’s accident was not “an operator created incident,” that the cruise control mechanism located on the Peters’ vehicle was defectively designed and dangerous; that a single transient fault actuated the throttle of the vehicle and caused the accident; that the vehicle accelerated from the tree to the planter after Mrs. Peters was unconscious and, therefore, was unable to press the accelerator with her foot; that General Motors engineers became concerned in the late 1980s that the cruise control system might cause sudden unwanted acceleration and recommended that General Motors install another type of system; and that General Motors had never warned customers about the defective nature of the cruise control system, the evidence was sufficient to make a submissible case of strict liability — design defect, strict liability — failure to warn, and negligence.”
Read more about the American Heart Association’s new CPR and ECC guidelines at this post our medical malpractice blog.
