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

how much-comment

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    $240,000 Some Assumptions (Some Reasons Why): Accident occurred at night, low light level on sidewalk, no reason for individual to expect mold to be on the
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 24, 2009
      $240,000

      Some Assumptions (Some Reasons Why):

      Accident occurred at night, low light level on sidewalk, no reason for
      individual to expect mold to be on the sidewalk, sidewalk condition
      excellent except for mold, mold on sidewalk as the result of abnormal
      condition: dripping water, etc., versus a natural part of the condition
      at this location, nothing abnormal about running from or to something,
      running barefoot not abnormal (not sure bare feet is a relevant factor,
      could have been wearing slippery bottom footwear), no local code
      addressing who is responsible for keeping the sidewalk in what condition

      Medical condition: scarring, atrophy, and decreased use of his right arm
      is stable but permanent. Expected additional degradation will increase
      the award by the degree of expectation. No debilitation resulting from
      pain.

      Loss of use: Partial loss of use of right arm does not significantly
      reduce his ability to progress in his chosen career path, if he has one.
      The increase in award would depend on his expected wage loss, loss in
      function that would reduce his reasonable expectations of employment or
      career..

      Jurisdiction: Assumes the jurisdiction characteristics (people) are not
      predisposed to factor in that this was outside a gay bar, thereby
      indicating Plaintiff is gay, or worse - outrageously gay. Assumes
      jurisdiction is neither historically plaintiff or defense oriented.
      Assumes there are no other "case related" issues that would have an
      effect on the monetary award: for example, with regard to the jury, one
      or more of the attorneys are offensive, the plaintiff is offensive, the
      plaintiff's actions are perceived as offensive, the defendant(s) is
      offensive. The judges' rulings have been fair, i.e., not prejudicial to
      either party.?



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