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.

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.”

When we think of “tort reform” we usually think of insurance and corporate lobbyists trying to convince legislators to limit the ability of people to sue wrongdoers for personal injuries or wrongful death.

But the fight is much broader than that, as evidenced by this press release from the National Conference of State Legislators. Now, the FDA is considering a rule that would limit the liability of drug manufacturers from failure-to-warn suits if the drug’s label was approved by the FDA. The rule would pre-empt state law, including state common law.

The FDA has argued before that its approval of medical devices pre-empted state law claims. The claim has been rejected in drug cases in the past.

Contact Information