A California jury has awarded a $1.1 million verdict to a man who sued his landlord after a slip and fall. Plaintiff fell down the stairs at his apartment on January 1, 2010, and later developed disk injury and symptoms of lumbar strain. A houseman for a wealthy San Francisco family, Plaintiff was forced to quit his job because of the pain. Torres sued the property owner alleging that he failed to keep the stairs clear of slippery algae, and did not install a handrail, as required by local code. The owner or his insurance company let the case to trial. Bad choice. A jury awarded Torres $1,070,801 for economic losses, including $850,000 for future lost earnings. Plaintiff’s slip and fall attorney said, “If the defendant had provided the minimum protection of a building code-required handrail, at a cost of less than $100 and an hour of time, this lawsuit would have never been necessary….” This really makes you step back and think. As a retired general contractor, Fleming could have installed the handrail himself. What made him think it was worth the risk NOT to install the handrail? Plaintiff and his family had moved to the apartment in 2008 after losing his Novato home to foreclosure. Hopefully, with a million-dollar verdict, he’ll be able to find another home. Maryland slip and fall cases are now getting a bit easier to get to a jury after a recent Maryland Court of Appeals opinion that softens Maryland’s still somewhat Draconian assumption of the risk law.
Frequent Flyer IME State Farm Doctors: Admissible at Trial?
One interesting issue we encountered during our last trial was whether we could point out that the defense doctor was a frequent flyer for one particular insurance company in a case that did not involve the insurance company that was a party to our matter.
The defendant’s IME doctor was testifying by videotape. The doctor is one that can most generously be described as a frequent “independent” expert witness for State Farm. Obviously, as the plaintiff’s attorney, I wanted to make hay to the jury of the fact that the doctor makes over $300,000 a year from a limited number of lawyers and that this colors his testimony.
The defendant argued that we used the word “insurance” to tell the jury that the defendant has insurance. I don’t think it did that. The purpose of the cross on bias – which I later learned was meaningful to the jury – was to underscore our leitmotif of why this otherwise qualified doctor has it so wrong: he is in the back pocket of a small group of defendants.
Do Defense Costs Matter to Insurance Companies?
Defense costs are rarely a big factor to the major insurance companies in 2011
I think there is conventional wisdom out there that insurance companies will settle cases because they fear litigation costs. I really think, on the micro-level in which Maryland accident lawyers deal, all they fear is verdicts. As a result, defense costs seem to be a factor of decreasing significance in settlement negotiations. Most large insurers have “captive” staff counsel offices in major metropolitan areas. Sure, this still costs real money. But the insurance companies don’t quite see it that way. Because these lawyers are direct employees of the insurer, and who do nothing but defend against lawsuits brought against that carrier’s insureds, the cost – the significant cost – get obscured.
Insurance companies – and the Baltimore Sun for that matter – seem sold on the cost savings on in-house lawyers. I get the logic. These lawyers (and their offices and staff) are a fixed cost, so adding one more case to defend does not appreciably change the carrier’s costs or its settlement analysis on any particular case.
How Much for the Wrongful Death of a 25-Year-Old Girl?
An Illinois jury awarded $1.275 million to the family of a 25-year-old woman who had almost completed her nursing degree and was killed while driving to her job at a hospital. Tired driving appeared to be the cause of the car accident: the Defendant just fell asleep and hit the Plaintiffs’ decedent.
The damages only trial lasted four days. The jury heard four grueling days of testimony from the family. Not that a tragedy like this can get worse, but this young girl had already been through a lot: surviving two kidney transplants only to be senselessly killed by someone driving down the road.
You hate to say only $1.275 million. That is a lot of money. That said, it seems like an extremely low verdict for the death of a 25-year-old girl. In Maryland, jury awards are cut in cases like this – it is unlikely there were significant economic damages for the family of this young woman. Still, juries in Maryland and in most states are not told about a cap and I think, just symbolically if nothing else, the award should be higher for a 25-year-old girl who overcomes much adversity to survive and thrive.
Trucking Companies: Finding Their Insurance and Assets
There is a good article in the Lawyers Logbook this month on the shell games trucking companies play to buy the minimum insurance – $750,000 for most big rigs under federal regulations – and play shell games by taking advantage of corporate structuring to minimize liability when they kill someone.
Trying to Decrease Bus Accidents
The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued as many imminent hazard orders in the last two years, getting rid of more unsafe bus and truck companies, than the prior 10 years combined.
Buses are incredibly safe. If you are in the bus. This shocks parents but it is probably true: your child is better off with an unsafe bus driver taking her to school than you. But if you are in a bus’ path, it is a different story obviously, particularly for pedestrians.
You can read the DOT release here.
State Farm’s Expert Designations
In accident cases, our lawyers make sure we know what expert testimony defendants are will see at trial. One weapon in our discovery arsenal is a good expert interrogatory.
Identify any and all experts you intend to call as witnesses, and whose reports you intend to mention and/or introduce at trial or in any Motion, including his/her area of expertise, and identify and attach to your Answers any and all written reports prepared by said experts, and indicate the content of any and all opinions reached by said experts and the factual basis for each such opinion and the amount of compensation paid to each such expert.
In its response, State Farm says, “Hey, cool your jets, we will produce experts pursuant to the discovery order.” Technically, State Farm’s answer is not satisfactory. This interrogatory, served with the Complaint, is due within 30 days of service. But there is the rule and there is the way things are done. Filing a motion to compel to answer an expert interrogatory before the scheduling order requires expert designations would be just too ticky-tacky. It is a tell to State Farm and the judge hearing the motion that you are more interested in fighting for the sake of fighting than really trying to engage in legitimate discovery.
So, we wait for the expert deadline. We get a cut and paste document that tells us absolutely nothing.
Calculating Pain and Suffering Damages
A critical component of damages in wrongful death car accident cases is loss of services of the survivors from the victim. Loss of services is a dumb legal expression we would do best to get rid of. Solatium damages is an awful phrase, too. But at least it does not imply in the definition that the loss is pretty much someone doing less for you. (Noneconomic pain and suffering damages is a little better, I guess. We will use that.)
In Maryland, we describe these wrongful death damages to a jury as “mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education where applicable.” Most states use similar strange language, but the gist of it is: what has really been lost – calculating everything – from the death of this person?
Here are the statistics nationally on noneconomic pain and suffering jury awards:
New Maryland Tort Claim Act Opinion
I wrote a blog post this morning on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog about the Maryland Court of Special Appeals’ opinion in Tollenger v. State. Plaintiff’s got a reversal of a summary judgment entry to the State of Maryland in a wrongful death claim that involved the failure to erect a Jersey Wall on a bridge in Harford County.
So at some point, the Plaintiff will get a trial date. The wheels of justice can churn slowly: this accident happened 9 years ago.
Maryland’s Move Over Law
Last October, a little known new law with a catchy name – the “Move Over Law” – went into effect in Maryland. The law tries to deal with a problem that won’t go away: the safety risk in emergency situations to police, fire, emergency medical services personnel, and, not insignificantly, at least to me – the rest of us.
This new Maryland law requires drivers approaching from the rear of an emergency vehicle using visual signals while stopped on a highway to, if possible, “move over” one or more lanes. If moving to another lane away from the stopped emergency vehicle is not possible, the law requires drivers to ‘slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions.’
I don’t see a ton of tickets being generated from this new law. But, theoretically, violation of the “move over law” is a primary offense with a fine of $110 and one point. If the violation contributes to a traffic crash, the fine is $150 and three points.