Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

developing story-comments

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Well, now let s see here. It seems to me first of all that almost any way you choose to slice this cheese, in the end there will be *some* compensation paid
    Message 1 of 1 , May 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, now let's see here. It seems to me first of all that almost
      any way you choose to slice this cheese, in the end there will be
      *some* compensation paid out – it's just a question of how much, and
      who pays.

      Taking things chronologically, I would first pose a question
      regarding the "putting pressure on sub-contractors" allegation. If I
      were sitting on a jury and heard that tossed out, my first thought
      would be "Okay, prove it." I'd want to see or hear through witnesses
      and/or documentation evidence of the alleged "pressure." On its
      face, that statement is believable but credible evidence would be
      most helpful.

      The information suggests that Plaintiff is (or was) employed by one
      of the sub-contractors –as a "finisher" of sorts. Is that a correct
      presumption?

      The "kick a brick" test alluded to quite frankly stinks as evidence
      of "safety." Granted, 99 of 100 times it might prove sufficient, but
      there are better ways – especially where ultimate safety is at
      issue. Granted, this case does not involve a toppled brick chimney
      or the like, but the underlying approach to assessing or assuring
      safety should be somewhat similar. If that mother goes and something
      happens, somebody's keister is gunna be in a sling.

      Defendant's allegation that "this did not happen – nobody saw it…"
      is nonsense at best. It makes me think of that question that starts
      out "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around…" At
      least two others "saw" the accident. (Note to Plaintiff: Get
      yourself a bloodhound and say "C'mon Rover boy, let's go hunting!")

      The nature of Plaintiff's injury and subsequent treatment … if I
      were a juror, I'd want to hear expert testimony on that from the
      doctor(s) who did the work; Nothing too technical, but enough to
      settle the matter in the average "reasonable" mind.

      The single item of any weight against Plaintiff would it seems to me
      be the alleged videotape. None of the rest of it matters –
      particularly the prior felonies.

      "Every time the Plaintiff goes to the doctor he tells a different
      version. Sometimes it is one brick, sometimes two bricks. The next
      time it is several bricks." Here again – nonsense which could be
      easily explained away. Whether it was one, ten, or a hundred – it
      only takes one!

      I could go on, but will not. I will say this much in closing: in all
      probability, Somebody is going to kick out bucks here – because an
      injury was obviously done. If defendants expect to win, they had
      better put forth more *relevant* information than is given here. I'd
      almost be tempted to offer a settlement, equally divided between the
      site owners and the contractors. There's just not enough here of any
      consequence that would allow them to escape responsibility.
      ------------

      ___________________________

      The defendent has a real problem in that there is plenty of research
      acknowledging that back pain cannot be ascertained by any physical measures
      and that
      conditions which make one patient immobile with pain do not affect others.

      I'm wondering if the reactions would be the same if this were a middle aged
      wealthy woman horseback rider who went to visit the house and had the same
      accident (and similar previous incidents from throws)?

      Back surgery and fusion is no fun, and there are zillions of 'failed'
      surgeries (Amy should just trot out some of the previous cases!) which leave
      people
      miserable. Uh oh, there are the next suits in this case about to be
      filed.....
      ;-)

      "not able to work" is iffy - he certainly can't go back to the work he was
      doing previously. As for the bicycle ride, that may be an attempt to regain
      physical loss which shouldn't necessarily be held against him.

      Besides, I hate developers - I'll bet there wasn't one piece of affordablel
      property in this tract!
      __________________
      With the wheelbarrow incident, evidence of post-accident activity (is it
      contrary to doctor's orders), omissions and changing stories, I would vote
      against awarding him anything.













      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.