Comments on: Tried to outrun subway train, wins $1.4 m

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:54:46 +0000

This case gives me an idea of how to award “damages” in situations like this.

Since no one is more able than ourselves to judge the value of our lives, the jury should be asked to decide how much the deceased valued his own life. In this case, the answer is that the deceased felt his own life was worth zero dollars (or he wouldn’t have done anything so stupid), 25% of which is also zero.

By: Ben Glass

Ben Glass — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:22:50 +0000

What’s interesting about this case is that the jury felt the plaintiff was 75% responsible for his injuries. As a plaintiff’s lawyer I have to tell you that there are not many jurisdictions where this guy would have been able to recover. In Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C, if a plaintiff is 1% negligent he loses. In most states that do compare the negligence of the parties a plaintiff can still only win if he is not more than 50% at fault. I do find it rather amazing that one could be 75% at fault and recover anything.

That having been said, the criticisms of the judges on appeal is rather unfair. They correctly state what is clearly a liberal law. It’s not their “fault” that this case turned out with this result. The simply applied New York’s law to the case.. as did the jury, apparantly.

By: Xmas

Xmas — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:56:17 +0000

Because the guy driving the train should certainly expect there to be a guy running on the train tracks in the middle of the night.

Maybe all of the New York trains should simply run at 8 mph all the time, you know, in case someone is on the tracks.

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:47:29 +0000

For New York plaintiff’s bar connections to the New York Assembly, check out some of Walter Olson’s writings… needless to say, it’s pretty gross. Many downstate legislators are plaintiff’s attorneys themselves, and I doubt the defense bar is even close to represented. If anyone’s got the breakdown, pass it along.

What makes it so offensive is that in achieving tort reform, you’ve basically got to get past a bloc of people who have a direct and personal financial interest in not letting it happen. Tort reform is money taken directly from the pockets of many of these people. Obviously, as legislators, their duty should be to the public good, which is obviously not served by lawsuits like Juan Soto’s. Instead, they’re concerned with their own piles of dubiously-gotten gains. These legislator/plaintiff’s attorneys are in breach of the public trust.

By: joe kosanda

joe kosanda — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:36:57 +0000

as a moderate user of a treadmill, the typical treadmill overstates the speed and distance by approx 25%.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:11:31 +0000

Is it ethical for Overlawyered.com to list the names of the four judges who voted in favor of the plaintiff and which governors appointed them? Do the judges have any connections to trial lawyers?

Well, the opinion is there for you to read, so I supposed if you wanted to find out, you could.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:50:08 +0000

Is it ethical for Overlawyered.com to list the names of the four judges who voted in favor of the plaintiff and which governors appointed them? Do the judges have any connections to trial lawyers?