Law Suits and Popular Ignorance

Ok I know I said I'd be quiet but TTH re-iterated what I thought was correct...but then got lost and thought I had it all wrong. Let us know Mazo if you find different...seriously.

C x Originally Posted by Camille

OK, found it.

M.G.L. Chap 231 Sec 6D:

"In any action of tort brought as a result of bodily injury, sickness or disease, arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle within this commonwealth by the defendant, a plaintiff may recover damages for pain and suffering, including mental suffering associated with such injury, sickness or disease, only if the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in treating such injury, sickness or disease for necessary medical, surgical, x-ray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral expenses are determined to be in excess of two thousand dollars unless such injury, sickness or disease (1) causes death, or (2) consists in whole or in part of loss of a body member, or (3) consists in whole or in part of permanent and serious disfigurement, or (4) results in such loss of sight or hearing as is described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of section thirty-six of chapter one hundred and fifty-two or (5) consists of a fracture."

So if you're seriously hurt or your medical bills run over $2K you can sue the other party for non-economic damages to your heart's content.

I couldn't find anything in the statutes about a cap on damages once you reach the $2K threshold needed to bring suit. Tush, do know if there is a cap that I'm missing?

Cheers,
Mazo.

God give me some warm weather!!!!!!!!
C xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Originally Posted by Camille

I would wish you a month in the Turks & Caicos.

Just a note Mazo: I’ve been called for jury three times, and I’ve been summarily dismissed by the defense attorneys all three times. I am white, male and former military. Somehow, I’m no longer considered a “peer.” Is that better or worse? Just askin'. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your right to hold a prejudice trumps the right of others to serve. And you call that justice? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But you have admitted you are making a decision based on your superficial prejudices without really knowing the qualities and character of the person you are dismissing. You are assuming that your prejudices are superior to any qualities a juror, with credentials such as mine, can bring to a jury. And from this we have justice? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I bet if you were the defendant in either a civil or criminal case, you'd want your attorney to strike potential jurors that might walk into the jury box with preconceived notions against you. Is your attorney going to always be accurate in his/her assessment? No. But do you want him/her to play the odds in your favor. I bet you do.

That's all Mazo it trying to say. Both attorneys are playing the odds in their ciients' favor, whether it be a civil or criminal case.

God give me some warm weather!!!!!!!!
C xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Originally Posted by Camille

The lament of all trapped in the NE!!! It felt like a "moral victory" to NOT need scarf, hat, & gloves today!!

Disclaimer: I only made it thru the first 2 minutes. I thought it was medicore at best and it didn't hold my interest.

That said, let's take this for what it was: an attempt to make people laugh. Even its biggest fans wouldn't take it literally. So, does it really make it the best jumping off point for a serious discussion of our tort system?

Lawsuit abuse drives up the costs of goods and services for everyone (and, yes, that even includes waitresses, dishwashers, and farm workers).

Here's some info:

http://www.instituteforlegalreform.o.../item/LAI.html

Yes, that's an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, so no doubt its credibilty will be attacked by those on the left. But is anyone outside the plaintiffs' bar (and its apologists) going to try to claim with a straight face that it's a less credible source than the American Association for Justice? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

LOL!!! I wondered how long it would take for the Defender of the Downtrodden and Oppressed to chime in.

BTW, that's MISTER jackass, to you, Cap'n.

Judging from your posts in this and other threads, you eschew frivolous and non-meritorious lawsuits. If that's the case, kudos to you! But if you're honest, you must admit that many of your brethren aren't quite so ethical. Do you deny that some attorneys attempt to profit from threats to bamboozle carefully chosen and clueless juries largely made up of people suffering from severe cases of social resentment and wealth envy? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If a lawsuit passes muster from a judge on summary judgment, and a jury finds for the Plaintiff, it's not frivolous. You may not like the outcome, but at least 11 people -- 10 lay people and one judge who has forgotten more law than you'll even know, not to mention have actually heard the facts of the case -- have decided it meritorious.

Do frivolous lawsuits exist? Sure. In very small number and they are almost always disposed of on summary judgment of by voluntary dismissal. And for every frivolous law suit, I can show you twenty or fifty frivolous defenses. Of course those are fairly easily disposed of, too, after some basic discovery. In fact, if you've got good lawyers representing the defendant, you usually don't even have to file motions, they generally will agree to withdraw those defenses.

But I know of no lawyer who routinely files frivolous suits, or even does so on a semi regular basis.

But you have admitted you are making a decision based on your superficial prejudices without really knowing the qualities and character of the person you are dismissing. You are assuming that your prejudices are superior to any qualities a juror, with credentials such as mine, can bring to a jury. And from this we have justice? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Exactly. The Plaintiff cuts the six jurors he thinks will most favor the Defendant. Insurance adjusters, very conservative folks, folks who for some reason identify with the Defendant. Likewise, the Defendant cuts the six jurors that he thinks will most favor the Plaintiff. Folks who have had personal injury suits themselves, employees of law firms, people who they think will give large awards (usually lower income folks and minorities). The twelve remaining people are the jury. It actually works amazingly well. You get the big middle of whatever the panel looks like.

So TTH, what is the best way to AVOID getting picked to be on a jury?

The Plaintiff cuts the six jurors he thinks will most favor the Defendant. Insurance adjusters, very conservative folks, folks who for some reason identify with the Defendant. Likewise, the Defendant cuts the six jurors that he thinks will most favor the Plaintiff. Folks who have had personal injury suits themselves, employees of law firms, people who they think will give large awards (usually lower income folks and minorities). The twelve remaining people are the jury. It actually works amazingly well. You get the big middle of whatever the panel looks like. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That sounds great in theory, and probably works well in practice, too -- at least in many venues.

But what about a place like Dallas, where the jury pool contains far more low income, unemployed or marginally-employed people, and minorities than conservative or successful types? It sure seems to me that locating a trial in a place like that makes it much more likely that you'd be able to seat a group of people skewed toward entitlement-mindedness and sympathy for any party suing a wealthy entity or individual.

Venue obviously makes a huge difference. Just look at the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. I think the guy lucked out big time when the D.A.'s office moved the trial to Downtown L.A., where a jury nullification-minded bunch of people supposedly bought into the claim that he was framed by racist cops and investigators. Does anyone seriously think Simpson could have avoided being sent to San Quentin if the trial had been held in Santa Monica?

So TTH, what is the best way to AVOID getting picked to be on a jury? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Do not be a registered voter. That's where the panels come from.

If you are a registered voter, I'm not sure how (if you can) de-register. That would be controlled by state law. If you can't de-register, move out of state, and don't register in your new state. The mail in your old state will be returned, and eventually your name will be removed from the voter rolls.

The other way is: you can die. But that's an extreme way to stay off the panel.

Just an anecdote for you libertarians/conservatives that don't want to serve: I grew up in a GM town. Of course, GM workers routinely were called for jury duty, but GM refused to let their workers go, or, at least penalized their workers if they left to serve on juries. It was a real problem. And, there was no motive for the GM worker to go b/c he lost a day's pay every day he was gone. Oh, he made his jury fee, but it was not near as high as the day's pay. So, the judge called the local plant president. He told the plant president that the next time there was a case filed in his court against GM, he would send Sheriff's deputies out to round up the drunks on skid row to form the jury panel.

GM's policy changed after that.

That sounds great in theory, and probably works well in practice, too -- at least in many venues.

But what about a place like Dallas, where the jury pool contains far more low income, unemployed or marginally-employed people, and minorities than conservative or successful types? It sure seems to me that locating a trial in a place like that makes it much more likely that you'd be able to seat a group of people skewed toward entitlement-mindedness and sympathy for any party suing a wealthy entity or individual.

Venue obviously makes a huge difference. Just look at the O. J. Simpson criminal trial. I think the guy lucked out big time when the D.A.'s office moved the trial to Downtown L.A., where a jury nullification-minded bunch of people supposedly bought into the claim that he was framed by racist cops and investigators. Does anyone seriously think Simpson could have avoided being sent to San Quentin if the trial had been held in Santa Monica? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You have yet to prove this "theory" of yours. Latest census figures show the poverty rate in TX to be 15.8%, while in the US it is 13.2%. Dallas County is 17.3%, slightly higher than the state rate. Since the jury panels are selected from voter registrations (b/c they have no inherent restrictions), you would assume that the percentage of the poor would be similar to that of the population. Now you have presented no data to support your assumption. And we all know what assumptions are all about.

Do not be a registered voter. That's where the panels come from.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I did not know that. Thanks Charles!

You have yet to prove this "theory" of yours. Latest census figures show the poverty rate in TX to be 15.8%, while in the US it is 13.2%. Dallas County is 17.3%, slightly higher than the state rate. Since the jury panels are selected from voter registrations (b/c they have no inherent restrictions), you would assume that the percentage of the poor would be similar to that of the population. Now you have presented no data to support your assumption. And we all know what assumptions are all about. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

In another recent thread containing a similar discussion, you said you thought Dallas was a "conservative" city and that it was generally fairly easy to seat a defendant-friendly jury. I replied that I think the opposite is the case, and that that's becoming more and more true every day.

I grew up in Dallas. A few decades ago, it was considered a very conservative city. You could look at the maps showing political party preference and see that Dallas County voted heavily Republican while all the surrounding rural counties went heavily Democratic. Now that's flipped. And Dallas County has a rapidly-growing minority population.

On the other hand, suburban Collin County (adjoining Dallas County and containing Plano and McKinney) would probably offer a defendant a better chance to reduce the risk of a low income, entitlement-minded jury. The same would likely be true of any other county away from the decaying inner city.

In another recent thread containing a similar discussion, you said you thought Dallas was a "conservative" city and that it was generally fairly easy to seat a defendant-friendly jury. I replied that I think the opposite is the case, and that that's becoming more and more true every day.

I grew up in Dallas. A few decades ago, it was considered a very conservative city. You could look at the maps showing political party preference and see that Dallas County voted heavily Republican while all the surrounding rural counties went heavily Democratic. Now that's flipped. And Dallas County has a rapidly-growing minority population.

On the other hand, suburban Collin County (adjoining Dallas County and containing Plano and McKinney) would probably offer a defendant a better chance to reduce the risk of a low income, entitlement-minded jury. The same would likely be true of any other county away from the decaying inner city. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I would agree with your Collin County assertion. Rich in Texas has been moving North of Dallas for some time.

But you still have yet to propose anything more than your opinion about Dallas County.

I would agree with your Collin County assertion. Rich in Texas has been moving North of Dallas for some time.

But you still have yet to propose anything more than your opinion about Dallas County. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Geez...

What do you expect me to do? Sorry if I just don't feel like going and looking up a bunch of data. If you disagree with my opinions, fine. Let's just stipulate that that's the case and move on to discuss something else!

But since you noted that many of the "rich" in Dallas have been moving out of the county for a long time, I think you just went a long way toward answering your own question.