Comments on: Dives into river on dare, jury awards $76 million

By: Richard Wright

Richard Wright — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:08:08 +0000

The finding of negligence by the defendant may make more sense given two facts not noted in your or Hochfelders’s description of the case:
(1) The defendant was not the owner of the dock but the employer of the plaintiff and the general contractor for work being done on the dock.
(2) The plaintiff’s boss as well as fellow employees allegedly goaded him into jumping into the water (and, as you report, the defendant did not put up any defense).
See http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-lawsuit2309jan23,0,1704148.story

By: Hobnob Blog

Hobnob Blog — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:24:05 +0000

Assorted Links 1/28/09…

Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers The New Congress 2009: Understanding The 111th Congress, February 10, 2009 Capitol Hill Workshop: Politics, Policy, and Process, February 11-13, 2009 The President’s Budget, February 24, 2009 The …

By: A Guy In New York

A Guy In New York — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:23:37 +0000

Assorted Links 1/28/09…

Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers Into the Wild Shark Fin Ice Tray The Scourge of Redshirting. Kindergarteners… Not Athletes AT&T Announces First Femtocell For 3G Users eBay comes around, begins to realize Skype needs to go Elean…

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:51:48 +0000

Broken neck, default judgment where there is no lawyering involved. I’m not sure this tells us anything. If you are of the bent to do so, it would be fun to suggest that this is ridiculous sign of a system running amok because the verdict is so high and the case was so weak. But to do so, is the elevation of form over substance.

My question – and I didn’t read the articles which may give the answer – is why on earth would a lawyer file suit and take a undefended case to a jury. Absent a incredibly compelling reason, this is OVERLAWYERING. I can’t speak to the facts of this case but lawyers have often sought verdicts to say “I got a verdict of $20 million” regardless of whether the was a fair trial and a meaningful award. And this is not a good thing.

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:04:10 +0000

I think a roving patrol with a squad of Marines is necessary. After all, won’t someone please think of the children?!

By: Dirk D

Dirk D — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:29:34 +0000

“It was therefore impossible for any reasonable railing to restrain a determined fool.”

That’s the beauty of the reasonableness test. It’s not so constrained, as to rely on the rail. Perhaps a reasonable dock owner would have had an armed guard. Surely, an armed guard could have saved this man from himself.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:26:24 +0000

According to the article, the defendant could not afford a lawyer and so offered no defense. It’s a default judgment. I wonder therefore if this tells us anything about the state of negligence law. As far as I can see there is no plausible theory of negligence by the defendant, but since no defense was offered this nonsense got by.

By: nevins

nevins — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:24:11 +0000

There really cannot be negligence regarding the dock or its design since the plaintiff intended to, and successfully, defeated the reasonable safeguard of a rail. It was therefore impossible for any reasonable railing to restrain a determined fool.
Also, had he been even minimally successful at performing his belly flop stunt, then he would not have broken his neck; belly flop = flat entry, broken neck = head first entry.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:48:25 +0000

I’m quite sure Mr. Hoffmann didn’t set out to break his neck or win a multi-million dollar verdict. Diving head first in to unknown water, of course, is inadvisable unless you’re a lemming. Nevertheless, I hope this post and thread draws the attention of those who are close to the case so we can all enjoy an emotionally driven ploy about the unknowns of the fact pattern.

By: John Hochfelder

John Hochfelder — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:32:13 +0000

This jury award will neither be paid nor upheld (if the appeal is even concluded). The damages amount is too high, the liability too tenuous and the defendant is uninsured and bankrupt. The case is important nonetheless as you raise interesting and important points about our civil justice system and this type of case. In my blog post today at http://www.NewYorkInjuryCasesBlog.com/ I have taken a stab at discussing some of this further, particularly as it relates to New York law and verdicts and settlements here.