Comments on: Pro-plaintiff liability reform

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:51 +0000

“Can someone help me out with why the verdict won’t be set aside and an award for the cap amount, $100,000, entered?”

The verdict won’t be set aside, but it will be reduced to the statutory limit.

Plaintiffs attorneys routinely ask for more than they are legally allowed to get because it makes them look better. They can claim they won awards totaling millions even though they only received much less.

It’s also a good bargaining tool for later negotiations. They can say to the defense attorney: “You might as well pay the limit now because last year I won 10 times that at trial.”

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:41:30 +0000

Can someone help me out with why the verdict won’t be set aside and an award for the cap amount, $100,000, entered? The reporter and the politicians he’s interviewed seem to be making the assumption that the jury’s verdict will somehow stand. I might note that this amateurish-sounding reporter has, despite the facts, taken the breathless point of view of 1) the plaintiff’s lawyer and/or 2) a responsible tax-dollar watcher (a tone that, coming from journalists, always makes me snort. The same crowd who calls for government spending to fix every problem all of a sudden gets religion when “wasted tax dollars” make for a good story – but I digress.) As to the jury’s verdict, the story even includes the quip from the plaintiff about ASKING THE LEGISLATURE for the money, which indicates to me that HE doesn’t think the verdict wouldn’t be set aside.

Anyone? Mr. Reporter, maybe you can fill us in.

By: Sean O'Brien

Sean O'Brien — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:38:46 +0000

This story is appalling. Absolutely appalling. The bottom line is that courts are for disputes, and if something is not legitimately disputed, a litigant has no business wasting court time and resources. To say nothing of the effect on the other party. Plus, attitudes like this, and the natural reaction to them, leads to the judicial system taking liberties with the law, and in cases like this, not without justification, after all, if the city is willing to play hardball just because it can, why then can’t the courts? I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do, but certainly the city attorney cannot complain one iota.