April 21, 2008

$87 Million Verdict in Dallas

On Friday, a Dallas County jury awarded $87 million to a man who was partially paralyzed in a moving-truck accident with $87 million in his lawsuit against U-Haul.

Plaintiff’s lawyer Ted Lyon told reporters after the verdict that U-Haul had faulty emergency break and worn down gears. The Plaintiff rented a U-Haul to help his daughter move. When he got out of the truck, it started rolling backwards and knocked him down. Now the formerly active retiree cannot walk and requires around-the-clock care.

March 18, 2008

Are West Virginia Tort and Injury Lawyers the Problem?

The West Virginia Record has an editorial about how the three of the top verdicts in the country came from West Virginia and derided plaintiffs’ lawyers as “tort barons” destroying industry in West Virginia and through the country.

Okay, the problem is West Virginia personal injury lawyers (tort lawyers). Just for fun, let’s look at the fact and see about all of these tort claims. The big verdict was a $404 million award in Roane County v. Columbia Natural Resources. In that case, 10,000 other royalty owners who questioned the price they were being paid for natural gas produced from their property. This is not a tort claim. This is a company stealing from people. Exactly how should such a claim be handled? Should the plaintiffs have allowed this to go on without question for the “good of industry?” How many folks on the Editorial Board of the West Virginia Record would have refused payment if they were in the class? It is just plain silly.

The second case cited, a $251 million verdict against Du Pont in Clarksburg was not a personal injury case but a lawsuit over Du Pont’s handling of the environmental cleanup created by a West Virginia zinc-smelting facility. This is was not a single insured person. This was a lot of people who had been hurt by a very large company in a case where the jury found they did not give due consideration to the environment or the surrounding property owners. Approximately 7000 people suffered harm to their property and we subjected to significant health risks. What would the Editorial Board of the West Virginia Record do if they sat on the jury in this case?
The final verdict in the top 10 was a $219 million verdict against Massey Energy. The Plaintiff was another big company who was suing for breach of contract. Perhaps if one big company breaches a contract against another big company, they should not be able to sue for breach of contract. Wonderful logic.

This West Virginia Record’s editorial is pathetic. I could argue their position better than they did. There is an intellectual argument that can be made calling some aspect of our tort system in question. I don’t agree this argument – I think it is dead wrong - but it can be made based on facts and it held by reasonable people. This argument is just plain silly and is an embarrassment to the West Virginia Record and the people it has misled.

March 5, 2008

Mississippi Supreme Court Dismisses Case Against Truck Stop

A truck driver whose wife was tragically killed at a crossing at a Mississippi truck stop failed to allege facts sufficent to defeat a motion for directed verdict, Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision. Plaintiff's lawyers had alleged that the truck stop operators negligently failed to provide adequate lighting and had placed a propane tank and advertising in its parking lot, obstructing the view of pedestrians and drivers of oncoming traffic. But the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the danger of crossing the public roadway should have been obvious to the truck driver's wife. Four of the judges disagreed, finding that even though the truck stop did not own the area in question, there was testimony at trial that it was generally known that truckers parked in the area, even those that were not customers at the truck stop. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, he was one judge short.

February 29, 2008

Oregon and Colorado Consider Raising Caps of Damages in Personal Injury Cases

The TortsProf Blog reports that state legislatures in Colorado and Oregon are considering increases to their caps on noneconomic damages. Colorado is currently debating a bill that would raise the cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases from a measly $300,000 to a less measly, but still ridiculously low, $450,000. The bill was voted out of committee on Monday and will now be sent to the Senate floor for debate. The details are here.

Oregon is wrestling with a last year’s Oregon Supreme Court ruling that caps on damages payable by the state was unconstitutional as applied. The task force has been set up in Oregon to study the issue of raising the cap on noneconomic damages.

In the history of caps on noneconomic damages, the door has swung only one way - toward adding caps or decreasing the amount of the cap. Hopefully, this news for the clients of personal injury lawyers, that the door will begin to swing in the other direction.

February 11, 2008

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict of $10.2 Million for Paralyzed Teenager

The Insurance Journal reports that a Pennsylvania jury awarded $10.2 million to a teenager who paralyzed in a drunken driving crash while wearing a lap belt in the backseat of a Volkswagen.

The verdict assigned 51 percent of the liability to the drunk driver, 39 percent to Volkswagen and 10 percent to the utility company who owned the pole utility to the pole that the driver hit.

There is no way to be sure but I suspect this case was all about Volkswagon. The drunk driver I’m sure already tendered their policy of insurance, whatever that was. The utility company also settled before trial. But Volkswagen owes Plaintiff over $3.9 million. This sounds like a lot but she has already incurred about $5 million in medical bills.

Plaintiff injury’s in this case is called submarining. This is where the accident victim, usually a child or smaller adult, slips underneath the lap belt during a car accident, causing the belt to ride up on the abdomen leading to internal injuries. Typically, this person is sitting in middle of the backseat. Because the middle seat is infrequently used, it has largely been ignored by car manufacturers with regard to passenger safety in car accidents. Finally, the federal government stepped in and mandated that new cars sold after September 1, 2007 in the United States must have a combination lap and shoulder belt in all back seat positions, including the middle seat.

December 27, 2007

Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that Ohio’s statutory caps on damage awards in personal-injury lawsuits are constitutional in a 5-2 decision today.

Like most states with caps, the cap applies to pain and suffering damages and other intangible injuries. The Ohio cap is particularly restrictive: $350,000 unless the injured person lost a limb or bodily organ. Ohio also has a punitive damages rule that restricts punitive damages to twice the amount of damages awarded as the judge or jury awards in compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries, minus any reductions as a result of the cap on pain and suffering damage. (Actually, the formula is a little more complicated than that but this is the gist of it.)

In this case, the plaintiff filed a product liability case against Johnson & Johnson claiming she suffered blood clots as a result of having used the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch, a hormonal birth-control patch.

Two justices dissented. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer wrote that, "Today is a day of fulfilled expectations for insurance companies and manufacturers of defective, dangerous or toxic products that cause injury to someone in Ohio… But this is a sad day for our Constitution and this court. And this is a tragic day for Ohioans, who no longer have any assurance that their Constitution protects the rights they cherish."

Interesting, Justice Pfeifer also noted that in deciding to cap damages, the Ohio legislature relied on studies which were not "peer-reviewed" or "published in a scholarly journal." While this might not be a reason to ignore the legislative intent, because presumably the legislature can decide what they decide for any reason they want, it does underscore the faulty data that insurance companies and big business uses to rig or construe the data in such a way to create a crisis when one does not exist. For a great example of this from medical malpractice insurers, click here.