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

too old-comments

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    I am going on the assumption that the only two things to consider are (1) who was at fault in the accident and (2) what should damages be. (1) It is obvious
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I am going on the assumption that the only two things to consider are (1)
      who was at fault in the accident and (2) what should damages be.

      (1) It is obvious that the deceased was seriously injured as a result of
      the car crash.

      > [Her interninst] saw her immediately before the accident and her neck
      had no
      > problems. She was hit on the way home from his office. He also saw her
      in the
      > ER and saw her neck was badly injured.

      The scenario says:

      > gets hit in the rear

      in which case almost 100% of the time fault is assessed to the driver of
      the car in the rear. This is not always the case, but I have a feeling
      that the daughter-in-law who was driving the vehicle that struck the car
      the deceased was riding in was following them home from the trip to the
      internist. If so, the daughter-in-law should have been driving far
      enough back to avoid hitting the first car, even if it made an emergency
      stop.

      So, we come to the conclusion that the daughter-in-law was at fault in
      the accident that injured the deceased. However, we should not that
      damage to the car appears slight, so that the injury caused to the
      deceased was due more to pre-existing medical conditions than to the
      force of the accident.

      (2) As to assessment of damages we are told:

      a. The accident leaves her in a soft collar with pain and numbness, but
      that is because doctors cannot perform surgery because of a condition
      caused by her smoking,

      b. Medical records do not reflect the pain and suffering,

      c. Emphysema and osteoporosis were so far advanced as to be considered
      terminal, although no one would hazard a guess as to how much longer she
      had to live,

      d. She became depressed when she became ill and, true to form, she quit
      taking nourishment when she arrived at the nursing home, thereby
      debilitating herself terribly while already in the end stages of
      emphysema and, last but not least,

      e. There is no medical evidence that the accident was the cause of her
      demise.

      If I were a juror, then, I would have a very hard time awarding the
      deceased's family (I'm assuming they are the ones that are suing) much of
      anything by way of damages. It would have to be proven to me that the
      accident actually produced damages to the deceased and her family AND
      that those damages were significantly greater than the medical costs
      that they may have had to pay out anyway as the deceased's health kept
      deteriorating. (Note, there is already some outside home medical
      assistance being paid for.)

      The functionality of the family and the personality of the deceased are
      irrelevant in my opinion as to who was at fault in the accident and how
      much damage was caused, except, perhaps to suggest that the pain
      complained of by the deceased might have been exaggerated in order to put
      a "guilt trip" on the daughter-in-law.





      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      time is up or too little too late?
      The car accident might have contributed to shorten her life by a few months,
      but her condition pre-accident was problematic. Her respiratory disease,
      caused by constant smoking, prevented complete recovery from the accident
      anyway. Plus, she seems a manipulative individual towards her daughter-in-law. I'm
      for the defense 100%.







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      Amy - You might suggest to the author of this opinion that they go back and read your inquiry a few times more. It is obvious they have the facts totally
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Amy -

        You might suggest to the author of this opinion that they go back and read
        your inquiry a few times more. It is obvious they have the facts totally
        skewed. I'm surprised you'd even post it.

        Sue

        *****************

        This is not always the case, but I have a feeling that the daughter-in-This
        is not always the case, but I have a feeling that the daughter-in-<WBR>law
        who was driving the vehicle that struck the car the deceased was riding in
        wasThis is not always the case, but I have a feeling that the
        daughter-in-<WBR>law who was driving the vehicle tha

        So, we come to the conclusion that the daughter-in-So, we come to the
        conclusion that the daughter-in-<WBR>law was at fault in the accident that injured
        the deceased. However, we should not that damage to the car appears slight,
        so that the injury caused to the deceased was due more to pre-exis

        (2) As to assessment of damages we are told:

        a. The accident leaves her in a soft collar with pain and numbness, but
        that is because doctors cannot perform surgery because of a condition
        caused by her smoking,

        b. Medical records do not reflect the pain and suffering,

        c. Emphysema and osteoporosis were so far advanced as to be considered
        terminal, although no one would hazard a guess as to how much longer she
        had to live,

        d. She became depressed when she became ill and, true to form, she quit
        taking nourishment when she arrived at the nursing home, thereby
        debilitating herself terribly while already in the end stages of
        emphysema and, last but not least,

        e. There is no medical evidence that the accident was the cause of her
        demise.

        If I were a juror, then, I would have a very hard time awarding the
        deceased's family (I'm assuming they are the ones that are suing) much of
        anything by way of damages. It would have to be proven to me that the
        accident actually produced damages to the deceased and her family AND
        that those damages were significantly greater than the medical costs
        that they may have had to pay out anyway as the deceased's health kept
        deteriorating. (Note, there is already some outside home medical
        assistance being paid for.)

        The functionality of the family and the personality of the deceased are
        irrelevant in my opinion as to who was at fault in the accident and how
        much damage was caused, except, perhaps to suggest that the pain
        complained of by the deceased might have been exaggerated in order to put
        a "guilt trip" on the daughter-in-a "g

        __________________________________________________________




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