I love handling appeals. I prefer to be an appellee, and I would just as soon win and move on, but if we have to end up in an appellate court, I enjoy the work.
Here is a publication from the Defense Research Institute addressing various issues concerning appeals, including some legal writing tips.
The Insurance Commissioner from the State of Washington has released a fascinating study of malpractice insurance rates for physicians in that state. A news report of the findings says “that the amount doctors pay for malpractice insurance in 2005 is largely equal to or less than what they paid for coverage in 1985 when adjusted for inflation. These findings and others ‘fly in the face of those who claim that something dramatic has changed relating to malpractice suits in Washington,’ said Commissioner Mike Kreidler.”
Claims were also studied: “There were 10,212 closed claims during the period. Of those, 45 claims – less than 1 percent – were decided by a jury. Of those claims, 27 percent resulted in payments to patients. More than 60 percent were for $100,000 or less and less than 2 percent resulted in payments of more than $1 million.”
Here is the study itself.
A jury in South Texas returned a jury verdict against Ford yesterday.
A teenager died when the truck rolled over and the roof crushed. The truck was forced off the road by the actions of another driver. That driver was also apportioned fault in the incident. Ford was given 90% of the fault.
Plaintiffs introduced testing that demonstrated when the truck was dropped from a height of nine inches the roof crushed down to the headrest.
Can a passenger of one vehicle sue a passenger of a different vehicle alleging that the latter negligently told the vehicle driver that it was safe to back up when, in fact, it was not, and the resulting wreck injured the former?
This is a classic duty question – it has been certified to the Florida Supreme Court. Read the opinion here.
Remember that even if there is not a duty in general there may well be a duty because of the “gratuitous undertaking” of giving the driver advice. But that gives rise to a duty issue itself. Why? Because while the passenger who undertook the duty to “be on the lookout” for the driver of his car would clearly owe a duty to that driver and probably other passengers in that car there is still an issue of whether the passenger would owe a duty to the passengers of other vehicles.
The Plaintiffs’ proof is about over, and the jury has been permitted to ask questions. To read about the current status of this important case, click here.
Extreme Makeover is a disturbing show that takes advantage of poor self image and glorifies physical beauty. Deleese Williams did not make the final cut of the show and, she now alleges, the experience was so horrible that it caused her sister to take her own life. <a
According to one source, “Williams was videotaped recounting the ridicule she suffered as a child and her years in an abusive marriage to an ex-husband. Her lawsuit alleges that her husband and sisters were also interviewed and encouraged to make disparaging comments about her looks.Here is a copy of the complaint.
It appears that the contestant signed some sort of release before taking part in the activities that may have given rise to an actual appearance on the show.
I mentioned in a previous post that the Civil Rules Commission has proposed several rules changes that, if adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Legislature, will become effective on July 1, 2006.
One proposal is a change to Rule 37 and provides that a party who without substantial justification fails to supplement or amend discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26.05 will not be able to use that evidence at trial. The proposed rule gives rise to the risk of imposition of other sanctions as well, including advising the jury of the failure to amend or supplement. Your can read the proposed rule here.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the “family exclusion” that exists in every motor vehicle insurance policy I have ever seen is not void as against Tennessee law or public policy. The case came before the Court on a certified question from a federal district court in East Tennessee.
As you know, some lawyers just cheat. Some are just ignorant of the law and make mistakes. But others know the law and cheat.
Lawyers who are ignorant about the law need to be educated and warned. But cheaters need to be hammered. Judges who see lawyers repeatedly violate the rules – especially the same rule – need to come down on them.
An appellate court in Florida has made this point loud and clear. Read this excerpt:
Here is the most recent news on the Vioxx trial currently underway in New Jersey.
The author clearly does not understand the law of directed verdict.
