I know I'll get beat-up as being self-serving about this, BUT...

[Okla-homey]

This bill should be named "The Oklahoma Consumer Courthouse Door Deadbolt Act." If folks had any real idea how much a lawyer must invest to litigate a defective product or wrongful death case against a well-heeled corporate defendant, they would recoil in horror at this thing.

The simple fact is, decent folks who cannot afford to pay a lawyer on an hourly basis will be denied access to justice if this thing goes through. That is because no lawyer good enough to win their case is going to take it knowing it will cost him millions to take to trial with no guarentee he'll win. I think the couple in the article who went through this understand that fact.


Bill targets contingency fees

By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
Published: 2/15/2009 2:53 AM

How much is a lawyer worth?

Not as much as they think, say advocates of lawsuit reform.

Anything they can get, say people such as Billy Davis of Nowata.

Legislation in the state House of Representatives would sharply reduce the share of settlements and jury awards that plaintiffs' attorneys could claim as fees. The bill, a legislative referendum that would bypass Gov. Brad Henry and go directly to voters, is the first shot in an all-out assault by Republicans and business interests on the trial lawyers who are the bane of employers and insurers — and the chief financial support of Democrats.

"Any time a lawyer has a 50 percent stake in a case, you have to wonder whose case it really is," said Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, the author of the referendum, House Bill 1602.

Davis sees things differently.

"Whatever the lawyers get, they deserve," he said.

Eight years ago, Davis' toddler daughter Katie swallowed industrial cleaner from a plastic jug that did not have the child-proof cap required by law. The cleaner destroyed her esophagus and left her with injuries that make it impossible for her to swallow. Doctors say the girl, who is now 10, will have to be fed liquids through a tube in her stomach for the rest of her life and will never eat solid food.

Katie Davis later suffered a seizure that stopped her heart for 12 minutes, causing brain damage.

Davis accepted a settlement about three years ago from the insurer for the cleaner's manufacturer after five years of wrangling. His lawyers took a substantial portion of the amount as their fee, but Davis didn't begrudge that, not even to the fact that his daughter would have received more if the lawyers had taken less.

"Without them, my daughter wouldn't have gotten anything," he said.

Unlike most lawyers, who are paid by the hour or the job, plaintiffs' attorneys typically are paid on a contingency basis. They front the cost of putting on a case, and if they win, they receive expenses plus a share of the client's award or settlement.

If they lose, they get nothing.

In Oklahoma, the contingency fee can be up to 50 percent. Sullivan's bill would lower that to 33 percent on the first $1 million in damages and 20 percent on anything more than that.

"One lawyer said, 'If you do this, we'll just have to ask for more so we can get more,' " Sullivan said. "That brings up the question of who the lawsuit is supposed to benefit."

Sullivan, a lawyer who defends doctors and hospitals in malpractice suits, said he did not believe that contingency caps or any of the other reform measures proposed in a bill to be considered this week would prevent a liability case of merit from proceeding.

Jeff Raymond, a spokesman for the consumer advocacy organization OK Watchdog, disagrees. "The whole point is to cut people like the Davises out of the civil justice system," he said.

Davis doesn't see why lawyers' income potential should be regulated, he said.

"They don't cap what the doctors or the insurance companies make," he said.

The plaintiffs' lawyers make more or less the same argument.

Sullivan said liability law involved a "special arrangement" that, if not controlled, allows lawyers to take advantage of injured people.

"Many states have enacted more stringent attorney fee caps than what we're talking about," he said. "It doesn't seem to have stopped people from suing."

Davis just knows that his lawyers helped him when no one else would.

"I think if you change anything, it's going to affect the clients," he said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Randy Krehbiel 581-8365
[email protected]
By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090215_16_A13_Billya456899&allcom=1#commentform

If this thing passes, you can bet corporate interests will be doing the happy dance because they'll know they needn't worry anymore about pesky plaintiffs whose children were hurt by dangerous products or hurt by a drunk delivery guy. They will have nowhere to turn.

Finally, just about every product safety innovation over the past 50 years you can name came about because someone who was hurt, sued and won. Companies don't generally clean up their acts or make their products safer just for giggles. They must be motivated to do so. Companies conduct what are commonly called "cost benefit analyses." If companies believe that even if their product or operation hurts someone like you, they won't have to pay anything out, why change? On the other hand, if the cost in potential pay-outs if they do nothing exceeds the cost to make a change, they, being smart business people, make the change.

They have a version of this BS in Texas. Ask your friends and neighbors down there how that's working out for common folks.

This stuff sounds peachy until someone you love is affected.

[Frozen Sooner]

This sounds a lot like a solution out looking for a problem to me. I may be wrong on this, but I was under the impression it was fairly rare to have a contingency over 33% in the first place, at least on substantial actions.

Even if it's not that rare, what public policy goal is met by interference with the right of the attorney and his client to contract to legal purpose?

[Rogue]

You just now figuring out that the GOP is the party of The Rich And Wealth, Inc.? Next they'll figure out a way to say this is somehow about the Bible and family values.

[Okla-homey]

You just now figuring out that the GOP is the party of The Rich And Wealth, Inc.? Next they'll figure out a way to say this is somehow about the Bible and family values.

Yeah, I know. See, I don't aways agree with everything my party stands for. And perhaps inoppositely enough, I do quite a bit more defense work than I do plaintiff's work. That said, I can spot a legislative turd when I see one and this one is especially malodorous.

I also think it violates your constitutional freedom to enter into a contract. (Art. I, Sec. 10).

You gotta hand it to 'em though. They're cagey enough to know the only way this thing flies is if the folks vote for it, because our boy Guv would veto it if it were presented for his signature.

[Vaevictis]

Beautiful.

:les: UNIONS INTERFERE WITH THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT. IT'S SOCIALISM!@#

Oh, and let's limit the amount a person can contract to pay his lawyer.

[Vaevictis]

Personally, I think it would be much more effective to:

(1) Make it so that, in cases of questionable merit, the winning side can collect all expenses from the losing side.
(2) Make it so that the losing side's lawyers are on the hook for this, not just their client.

[Flagstaffsooner]

Wonder why you attorneys dont like this bill.
http://www.davestravelcorner.com/photos/honduras/Buzzards-Tegucigalpa.JPG

[Okla-homey]

This sounds a lot like a solution out looking for a problem to me. I may be wrong on this, but I was under the impression it was fairly rare to have a contingency over 33% in the first place, at least on substantial actions.

Even if it's not that rare, what public policy goal is met by interference with the right of the attorney and his client to contract to legal purpose?

Around these parts, 40-50% is pretty standard on defective product cases because they are obscenely expensive to litigate. The defendants have their own scientists and engineers. The plaintiff has to go out and hire his. And the good ones don't work cheap. And then to break the facts down into a logical flow of mentally digestable parts a typical jury can understand is literally an enormous undertaking. Not to mention development of exhibits. And while you're doing all that, you can't work on other cases so it becomes a primary focus to the exclusion of other work.

[Viking Kitten]

There are some serious ethical questions about this bill too. Ask yourself if it isn't a conflict of interest that the author is a lawyer who represents insurance companies. Then ask your legislator to give you one example of a "runaway jury" in Oklahoma. Hint: They won't be able to.

[Okla-homey]

Personally, I think it would be much more effective to:

(1) Make it so that, in cases of questionable merit, the winning side can collect all expenses from the losing side.
(2) Make it so that the losing side's lawyers are on the hook for this, not just their client.

That's pretty much the way they do it in many countries. Like the UK for example. Unfortunately, you can't know enough at the outset of a case to know whether its worth the risk of not making a dime AND having to pay the other guys fees. Therefore, people are routinely denied justice, or at least a decent shot at making their case.

The Brits have a legal aid system funded by the government that allows a person with a civil claim (like a personal injury, etc.)to go to that agency and get assigned a free lawyer, rather like our public defender system for folks charged with crimes involving jail time who can't afford a lawyer. The rub is, that civil "free" lawyer is funded by the government and he has a pre-set litigation budget that is dwarfed by what the corporation can spend. Result? Well, you can guess.

No sir, its best for each side to pay its own fees.

[Frozen Sooner]

Around these parts, 40-50% is pretty standard on defective product cases because they are obscenely expensive to litigate. The defendants have their own scientists and engineers. The plaintiff has to go out and hire his. And the good ones don't work cheap. And then to break the facts down into a logical flow of mentally digestable parts a typical jury can understand is literally an enormous undertaking. Not to mention development of exhibits. And while you're doing all that, you can't work on other cases so it becomes a primary focus to the exclusion of other work.

Fair enough. No need to justify their fees to me-whatever the client will agree to looks like a fair fee to me. It's not like there's not enough lawyers out there to bring a perfectly competitive fee outcome anyhow.

[Okla-homey]

There are some serious ethical questions about this bill too. Ask yourself if it isn't a conflict of interest that the author is a lawyer who represents insurance companies. Then ask your legislator to give you one example of a "runaway jury" in Oklahoma. Hint: They won't be able to.

Darn right my dear Teutonic Titwillow. For that matter, less than 90% ever go to trial, and of the ones that do, most plaintiffs lose versus "Mega-corp" who can bury them in paper and line up experts from Tulsa to Enid who will swear the plaintiff is an ignorant hick who should have known better than to let his kid drink cleaning solvent from a bottle with a simple screwtop lid. Which may be true, but you can't watch kids constantly 24/7.

[KABOOKIE]

Whaaaaambulance chasers!!

[Vaevictis]

That's pretty much the way they do it in many countries. Like the UK for example. Unfortunately, you can't know enough at the outset of a case to know whether its worth the risk of not making a dime AND having to pay the other guys fees. Therefore, people are routinely denied justice, or at least a decent shot at making their case.

The UK, as I understand it is mandatory loser pays. This is not what I'm advocating.

I'm advocating something that may be optionally awarded by the jury or the judge if one side can show that the other knew or should have known that the case was bogus from the outset.

Additionally, I would advocate a partial award -- eg, if the party advanced the case in good faith but later became aware (or should have become aware) that the case was a turd, they would be shielded from liability up until that point.

[NYC Poke]

This sounds a lot like a solution out looking for a problem to me. I may be wrong on this, but I was under the impression it was fairly rare to have a contingency over 33% in the first place, at least on substantial actions.

Even if it's not that rare, what public policy goal is met by interference with the right of the attorney and his client to contract to legal purpose?

Rates vary, and are often based on factors like whether the case goes to trial or settles, size of the recovery, whether it's appealed, etc.

Would this bill also affect reverse contingencies for the lit boutiques defending large lawsuits?

Also, a "loser pays" system would tilt the system heavily in favor of the defendants. Let's say a case is approaching trial and the chance of recovery for the plaintiff is 50-50 (and nothing is EVER certain in litigation). That means this case has survived all motions for summary judgment, etc., and is a pretty good case where there are good arguments for both sides. The defense would then staff the case with dozens of extra associates, file countless unnecessary motions, and employee dozens of superfluous experts (plaintiff's attorneys will say that firms already do this) in order to drive costs up, making it too expensive for the plaintiff's attorney risk losing by going to trial.

There already mechanisms by which the prevailing party can recover costs for frivolous litigation, and I've seen costs awarded pretty regularly. You don't want to discourage people from bringing good cases, and bad cases are already penalized.

[Vaevictis]

The point is that I want the lawyers to be on the hook for it, assuming they aren't already.

They should know better.

[Okla-homey]

The point is that I want the lawyers to be on the hook for it, assuming they aren't already.

They should know better.

They're already "on the hook" as you say because they're the ones spending time and treasure to develop the darn case and end-up with nothing if they lose, or far less than necessary to reimburse what they've spent if it settles for peanuts.

The thing is, in all sincerity, you want a contingency-based system where lawyers have a chance to cover what they have in the case and make a decent profit. It's the best guarentee that your lawyer is busting his hump for you as hard as he can and spending what he needs to spend to give you your best shot. Because he knows, if he doesn't win, he gets zip. If this turd passes, guys will pass on cases that definitely have merit but are too exspensive to bring to trial for 33% of the recovery.

[I Am Right]

I think they should only get paid 10%, if that, and get off the GOP's back, at least they stand for life not death like the Dem's.

[Okla-homey]

I think they should only get paid 10%, if that, and get off the GOP's back, at least they stand for life not death like the Dem's.

Well, except for executing folks. We tend to forget that whole "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" dealio. And don't kid yourself, execution is vengeance. Pure and simple.

[captain_surly]

Then ask your legislator to give you one example of a "runaway jury" in Oklahoma. Hint: They won't be able to.

Charles Been et al vs. O.K. Industries, Inc. et al. U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs asked for $14MM on the basis of very suspect expert testimony. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for $21MM so the attorneys could get their fair share. Three thousand employees and several hundred family farms are likely to be out of work unless Denver overturns.

[I Am Right]

Well, except for executing folks. We tend to forget that whole "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" dealio. And don't kid yourself, execution is vengeance. Pure and simple.

What do you call killing a child, choice?

[I Am Right]

Well, except for executing folks. We tend to forget that whole "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" dealio. And don't kid yourself, execution is vengeance. Pure and simple.

I would just as soon hang the b******s, Does that hurt the libs widdle feelings.

[NYC Poke]

Charles Been et al vs. O.K. Industries, Inc. et al. U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs asked for $14MM on the basis of very suspect expert testimony. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for $21MM so the attorneys could get their fair share. Three thousand employees and several hundred family farms are likely to be out of work unless Denver overturns.

Though it doesn't say so explicitly, the bill seems to be aimed at PI lawyers, not lawyers for business claims or, as here, violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. Also, it was the farmer suing O.K. It's difficult to see how they'll be hurt by this.

[Vaevictis]

They're already "on the hook" as you say because they're the ones spending time and treasure to develop the darn case and end-up with nothing if they lose, or far less than necessary to reimburse what they've spent if it settles for peanuts.

I'm not saying that this should apply to just lawyers working on contingency.

[Okla-homey]

I'm not saying that this should apply to just lawyers working on contingency.

People working by the hour are already covered whether they win or lose. You know, guys like the bill's author.

Your worst nightmare is having some rich d00d PO'ed at you who has unlimited means to pay lawyers by the hour to make your life hell.

[Okla-homey]

Charles Been et al vs. O.K. Industries, Inc. et al. U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs asked for $14MM on the basis of very suspect expert testimony. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for $21MM so the attorneys could get their fair share. Three thousand employees and several hundred family farms are likely to be out of work unless Denver overturns.

FWIW, a $21M jury award on $14M worth of claims is not a "runaway jury." "Runaway juries" tend to happen in the Deep South where 12 or 9 jurors take advantage of a chance to stickittotheman and give $100M in a wrongful death claim on some d00d who got run over while staggering across the road drunk at 2 in the morning.

Oklahomans as a class of people are pretty sensible and can smell a shammer when they see one, and generally don't reward people making spurious claims.

Heck, I know of a car wreck case right here in Tulsa in which a lady had $36K in medical bills. The jury found for her, but only awarded her $16K because they didn't like her. See, she hadn't filed taxes in a bout 12 years and that really steamed them. That, and on each break, she managed to jog downstairs for a ciggy, but gimped around like she was in agony in the courtroom.

[Okla-homey]

What do you call killing a child, choice?

no, I call it murder. But I'm consistent.

[tommieharris91]

I think they should only get paid 10%, if that, and get off the GOP's back, at least they stand for life not death like the Dem's.


I would just as soon hang the b******s, Does that hurt the libs widdle feelings.

You don't truly stand for life.

[Soonerfan88]

Serious question, not just to "pile on the shyster lawyers":

It says they want to limit percentages after expenses. So wouldn't the money for experts count as an expense? If you need to hire another law clerk to do some of your background, isn't that an expense? These items would be paid for by your client, correct? They then want to limit the amount of contingency on what's left over.

Example: $15M settlement. Cost of extra clerks, expert witnesses, travel, per diem = $5M (have no actual idea what this cost would be) so that leaves $10M left over. 20% of that is $2M - not a bad salary IMO.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm more amused by noob-sauce's implied characterization of Homey as a liberal than anything else.

[Frozen Sooner]

Serious question, not just to "pile on the shyster lawyers":

It says they want to limit percentages after expenses. So wouldn't the money for experts count as an expense? If you need to hire another law clerk to do some of your background, isn't that an expense? These items would be paid for by your client, correct? They then want to limit the amount of contingency on what's left over.

Example: $15M settlement. Cost of extra clerks, expert witnesses, travel, per diem = $5M (have no actual idea what this cost would be) so that leaves $10M left over. 20% of that is $2M - not a bad salary IMO.

My objection has to do with an unwarranted interference in the right of parties to contract, rather than whether fees are warranted.

[Jerk]

no, I call it murder. But I'm consistent.

Well, we have one party who is innocent and one who is guilty (supposedly) But I really don't want to get into the abortion debate but what the hell. Equating the value of a murderer's life to an unborn child just doesn't seem to add up to me.

Some people just need killing.

I'll tell you what, though. We abolish the death penalty on one condition: The mother^^^^ers do hard labor, making big rocks into small rocks, no cable TV, etc. I.E. make prison a miserable place.

[Vaevictis]

People working by the hour are already covered whether they win or lose. You know, guys like the bill's author.

Your worst nightmare is having some rich d00d PO'ed at you who has unlimited means to pay lawyers by the hour to make your life hell.

Which is why I'm saying that such lawyers should be on the hook personally if it turns out that they're bringing frivolous suits.

Maybe my suggestion isn't a good way to accomplish this, but a lawyer who helps a client bring a frivolous suit should get a financial kick in the junk for helping to enable such shenanigans.

[Soonerfan88]

Froze, I fully agree with that standpoint.

Maybe I read it wrong, but seemed as if Okla-homey was saying that lawyers would no longer take on these cases because they would not make enough in contingency fees to cover all their costs. If that is their argument, I don't see it as viable since the bill is saying cut fees after expenses are paid.

[captain_surly]

Though it doesn't say so explicitly, the bill seems to be aimed at PI lawyers, not lawyers for business claims or, as here, violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. Also, it was the farmer suing O.K. It's difficult to see how they'll be hurt by this.

All of the named plaintiffs and over half of the class are out of the business and have no interest in whether the company survives or not. They certainly won't be hurt if the verdict stands.

[captain_surly]

FWIW, a $21M jury award on $14M worth of claims is not a "runaway jury."

I suppose that is dependent on whether it's your seven million dollars or mine.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm in a bit of a quandry over this one, but most trial lawyers are Dems or funnel money to Dems. Seems a bit strange to me...Anything to prevent large sums to be sent to Dems is good to me...

[stoopified]

Personally I think 20% + expenses is more than ample,so I can't see why a cap is a bad thing.Then again I'm not a lawyer,just working-class white trash.I also think doctors are WAY OVERPAID.

[Oldnslo]

A couple of items, from an insurance lawyer who is paid an hourly rate, win or lose.

the bill is crap.

The point to capping attorney's fees is to make it economically unfeasable for the attorney to represent the aggrieved party. Passing this bill could have two effects. One, make the attorney do more "quick and dirty" work on plaintiff's cases, sometimes known as "churn and burn" by plaintiff's lawyers. Ultimately, the (often uneducated) consumer pays the price by the lawyer being unable to afford to work the case up properly.

The other is to make the lawyer impossible to get. As it is, with every plaintiff's case pitched to me, I have to weigh my anticipated return against what I could get working hourly. Got a small case? good luck with that. If this passes, more cases become too small for experienced lawyers to take. Why take a 10K case when my fee is capped to 2k, if I can make 5k working defense files? But then that 10k claim turns into a 4K claim, because the hurt person doesn't have a clue.

There are times I choose to reduce my fee to 20%. Not often. There are also times when I get 50%. Know what? I earn every bit of that. The 50% cases are the big nasty ones that take years and thousands of dollars to bring to fruition.

I used to work with the guy who turned over the "Pinto" memo in Ford's litigation. The one where some bean-counter had figured out the cost of making the Pinto's gas tank safe vs. anticipated verdicts for wrongful death cases. Corporations are capable of evil in pursuit of returns. The ONLY real recourse for hurt people is the Plaintiff's bar.

[Oldnslo]

Personally I think 20% + expenses is more than ample,so I can't see why a cap is a bad thing.Then again I'm not a lawyer,just working-class white trash.I also think doctors are WAY OVERPAID.

Let's play a game. You tell me what you do for a living and I'll decide what the law should say about how much you can make.

[olevetonahill]

I'm more amused by noob-sauce's implied characterization of Homey as a liberal than anything else.

I just caught that to and negged him fer it LOL
Hell I been greening him till then :D

[TMcGee86]

All this does is ensure the rich get richer and the poor stay poor as fewer lawyers take matters on contingency, and only those with enough wealth to pay hourly fees get access to the courts.

I know of no other profession where people are so opposed to paying for the service they are provided.

How many doctors out there are willing to foot the bill for you if you dont feel 100% better after surgery?

[bluedogok]

I know of no other profession where people are so opposed to paying for the service they are provided.
It's that way in the architecture/engineering fields and our fees are a fraction of what lawyers or doctors charge comparatively. I think most business people would be shocked at what most people in the industry make, the only "rich" architects/engineers that I have known started out that way with family money.

Everyone always wants to hammer the fees down but as with most things, you get what you pay for when you go to the cheaper whore down the street. I hate having to clean up messes after another firm burned up fees delivering a steaming pile of crap that can't be built. Then we have the issue of getting paid for the work we already performed as well, developers are real good at disappearing for awhile when it comes time for bills to be paid. That is something we are facing right now on some projects.

BTW - The bill is crap, there will always be unintended consequences from it like there is with 99.9% of all bills written anymore. Like the child safety bill that was recently passed regulating lead in products aimed at children. It has caused the motorcycle manufacturers to pull all cycles and ATV's AND parts marketed as children's vehicles off the market in the US because the alloys used in the manufacturer contain more lead than the new law required. I don't seen very many kids gnawing on motorcycle frames but the way that law was written it doesn't matter.

[I Am Right]

All this does is ensure the rich get richer and the poor stay poor as fewer lawyers take matters on contingency, and only those with enough wealth to pay hourly fees get access to the courts.

I know of no other profession where people are so opposed to paying for the service they are provided.

How many doctors out there are willing to foot the bill for you if you dont feel 100% better after surgery?

I don't remember Doctor's chasing after ambulances.

[Okla-homey]

I suppose that is dependent on whether it's your seven million dollars or mine.

Just out of curiosity, does the defendant have a liability policy? If so, who's getting put out of business if the verdict stands?

[TMcGee86]

I don't remember Doctor's chasing after ambulances.

Heh. They don't have to, the Abulances are contractually obligated to bring the people to them.

Seriously though, ambulance chaser is the lamest of all attorney neg speak. It's like your not even trying. There are tons better put downs than that.

What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish. One's a **** sucking bottom feeder, and one's a fish.

See. Much better.


Look, I am sure you have your reasons for hating us, and I am just as sure I do not even want to know what caused it, as I said in my spek I really cant even express how sad I am for your loss...

but the fact is not a single lawyer has ever awarded a plaintiff any amount of money, nor let a guilty man walk.

That would be your peers. So if you hate lawyers for lousy verdicts, you need to start hating everyone you see, because those are the people responsible, not the lawyers.

And it takes a lot of energy to walk around hating everyone all day.

And FTR, not all lawyers charge a lot, most of us are no where close to being rich, we have the highest instances of substance abuse and suicide of any profession, and 99% of us have nothing to do with ambulances.

[captain_surly]

Just out of curiosity, does the defendant have a liability policy? If so, who's getting put out of business if the verdict stands?

The suit alleges a violation of a federal statute. No coverage for defense or judgement costs under a commerciial general liability policy.

[Viking Kitten]

A vote on this bill is on the House agenda this morning. I'm guessing it passes.

[Viking Kitten]

Laid over until tomorrow.

[Okla-homey]

The suit alleges a violation of a federal statute. No coverage for defense or judgement costs under a commerciial general liability policy.

So, they are found at trial by an Oklahoma jury to have broken the law, and are seeking a do-over at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And they should get a free pass. And it's the plaintiffs' lawyers' fault. Got it.

[captain_surly]

So, they are found at trial by an Oklahoma jury to have broken the law, and are seeking a do-over at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And they should get a free pass. And it's the plaintiffs' lawyers' fault. Got it.

You're reading something into my post I didn't say. I merely disagree that there has never been a runaway jury in Oklahoma. I believe returning a judgment 50% above the top of the range sought by the plaintiffs meets the defination of runaway jury.

Trust me, this is a case where you would be much more likely be sitting at the defense table.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I have a problem with lawyers like John Edwards ambulance chasing winning huge sums and earning lots of money and then turning around and try to tell me, he and the gubment knows more about how to handle "my" money than I do...

I don't begrudge anyone earning and seeking to make as much as possible. You work hard - hopefullly you'll be rewarded. I do have a problem that you tell me how to live and you didn't live by that means while you were accumulating large sums of earnings. I think many people rail against that...

[Okla-homey]

You're reading something into my post I didn't say. I merely disagree that there has never been a runaway jury in Oklahoma. I believe returning a judgment 50% above the top of the range sought by the plaintiffs meets the defination of runaway jury.

Trust me, this is a case where you would be much more likely be sitting at the defense table.

Is it possible the extra $7M awarded by the jury were punitive damages? As you are probably aware, actual damages make the plaintiffs whole, punitive damages are meant to punish the wrongdoer.

[captain_surly]

Is it possible the extra $7M awarded by the jury were punitive damages? As you are probably aware, actual damages make the plaintiffs whole, punitive damages are meant to punish the wrongdoer.

No punitive damages were awarded. Judge White gave the plaintiffs two choices, accept the original demand or have another trial. They chose to accept the original demand.

The judge had granted summary judjement to the defendants but was reversed on this one issue. He is on the record saying the plaintiffs case doesn't make economic sense to him.

I won't bore the board with this any further, it's just that that I have friends and relatives on both sides and believe I know which side is in the right.

[TexasLidig8r]

If I was doing plaintiff's work.. which... I'm not, I would be the first in line to file a lawsuit challenging the law on the basis that it ipso facto, violates the "open courts" provision of the constitution. Take it up to the Supremes, and even if you lose, your name is out there front and center for all future plaintiffs to see.

[Howzit]

Darn right my dear Teutonic Titwillow. For that matter, less than 90% ever go to trial, and of the ones that do, most plaintiffs lose versus "Mega-corp" who can bury them in paper and line up experts from Tulsa to Enid who will swear the plaintiff is an ignorant hick who should have known better than to let his kid drink cleaning solvent from a bottle with a simple screwtop lid. Which may be true, but you can't watch kids constantly 24/7.

And of that less than 90%, what percent don't go to court because it's just cheaper to settle than litigate, not because of merits of the case? My guess is it's significant, though it is just a guess.

I've seen several of these up close from the evil insurance companies' side, and it is frustrating to us laymen to see the kind of BS for which the evil corporations sometimes get sued by the ever-honorable plaintiff's lawyers.

[John Kochtoston]

I don't remember Doctor's chasing after ambulances.

That's because the ambulances deliver.

[John Kochtoston]

No punitive damages were awarded. Judge White gave the plaintiffs two choices, accept the original demand or have another trial. They chose to accept the original demand.

The judge had granted summary judjement to the defendants but was reversed on this one issue. He is on the record saying the plaintiffs case doesn't make economic sense to him.

I won't bore the board with this any further, it's just that that I have friends and relatives on both sides and believe I know which side is in the right.

So, by remittitur (sp?), a system already in place to prevent "runaway juries," the judge reduced the amount of the award?

[captain_surly]

So, by remittitur (sp?), a system already in place to prevent "runaway juries," the judge reduced the amount of the award?

That is correct, but the the jury had already runoft.;) Some judges try to keep it real.

[John Kochtoston]

That is correct, but the the jury had already runoft.;) Some judges try to keep it real.

Seems to me, then, that there is already a mechanism in place to deal with the rare runaway jury.

[Viking Kitten]

Big yelling match going on in the House right now over the bill. Click here if you want to listen in. (http://www.okhouse.gov/OkhouseMedia/AudioOrArchives.aspx)

[Okla-homey]

Big yelling match going on in the House right now over the bill. Click here if you want to listen in. (http://www.okhouse.gov/OkhouseMedia/AudioOrArchives.aspx)

good stuff. The fact is, as one of those in opposition just said, people trying to spin this as "for the little guy" because it caps how much his lawyers get paid are being very disingenious. It's to protect the "big guy" from lawsuits. Plain and simple.

[NYC Poke]

I have a problem with lawyers like John Edwards ambulance chasing winning huge sums and earning lots of money and then turning around and try to tell me, he and the gubment knows more about how to handle "my" money than I do...

I don't begrudge anyone earning and seeking to make as much as possible. You work hard - hopefullly you'll be rewarded. I do have a problem that you tell me how to live and you didn't live by that means while you were accumulating large sums of earnings. I think many people rail against that...

John Edwards was an excellent trial lawyer, and as such, was able to pick and choose his cases to get the good ones. Other lawyers will refer good cases to hotshot trial lawyers because they'll get a percentage of the recovery for doing little work (in Texas a standard arrangement was "a third of a third"). If you look at the cases Edwards took to trial, he had some pretty sympathetic clients.

It's the marginal lawyers who tend to bring the crappy cases. They're desperate for clients.

[Frozen Sooner]

Meh. THA's just trying to say that he wants to cap the incomes of people who he doesn't agree with politically. He's not the first one in this thread to come up with that singularly un-American point of view.

[Viking Kitten]

Passed the House 54-46. On to the Senate.

[Frozen Sooner]

On the bright side: should this pass, it will bring about some interesting choice of law arguments as plaintiff attorneys do everything they can to keep cases out of Oklahoma. :D

[Okla-homey]

Passed the House 54-46. On to the Senate.


Still gotta pass the voters. I'm gonna place my trust in the innate good sense of Okies. But it'll be close. I think we gotta tough row to hoe to make sure people understand this effectively denies them access to the courts if they or their children are hurt by Megacorp.

[Jerk]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/18/drunk.amputee.payout/index.html

EW YORK (CNN) –– A Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to a man who lost his leg after drunkenly stumbling onto the path of an oncoming subway train.

Dustin Dibble, 25, landed in the subway tracks after a late night watching a hockey game at a bar with friends April 23, 2006. A downtown N train ran over him, severing his right leg.

According to Dibble's lawyer, Andrew Smiley, NYC Transit rather than Dibble bore primary responsibility for the accident because the subway driver had time to stop the train but did not.

Smiley added that Dibble's drunkenness did not excuse the driver, who said in a court deposition that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

"They don't get a free pass as to why the person was on the tracks. They are trained to be able to look out for people on the tracks ... and people are known to be intoxicated by night," the lawyer said.

Dibble's blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was .18, according to his lawyer, more than twice the legal limit had he been behind the wheel of a car.

The jury ruled Tuesday that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for the accident, so his monetary compensation was also reduced by 35 percent –– from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713.

The deficit-plagued MTA plans to appeal the decision, according to spokesman James Anyansi

(looks like they need something like this in NY...maybe not this exactly, but some sort of tort reform)

[Frozen Sooner]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/18/drunk.amputee.payout/index.html

EW YORK (CNN) –– A Manhattan jury awarded $2.33 million to a man who lost his leg after drunkenly stumbling onto the path of an oncoming subway train.

Dustin Dibble, 25, landed in the subway tracks after a late night watching a hockey game at a bar with friends April 23, 2006. A downtown N train ran over him, severing his right leg.

According to Dibble's lawyer, Andrew Smiley, NYC Transit rather than Dibble bore primary responsibility for the accident because the subway driver had time to stop the train but did not.

Smiley added that Dibble's drunkenness did not excuse the driver, who said in a court deposition that he mistook Dibble for an inert object.

"They don't get a free pass as to why the person was on the tracks. They are trained to be able to look out for people on the tracks ... and people are known to be intoxicated by night," the lawyer said.

Dibble's blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was .18, according to his lawyer, more than twice the legal limit had he been behind the wheel of a car.

The jury ruled Tuesday that Dibble was 35 percent responsible for the accident, so his monetary compensation was also reduced by 35 percent –– from $3,594,943 to $2,336,713.

The deficit-plagued MTA plans to appeal the decision, according to spokesman James Anyansi

(looks like they need something like this in NY...maybe not this exactly, but some sort of tort reform)

Sounds to me like the jury got this one right. You do have a duty of care not to run people over with trains, even if they ARE on the track.

[NYC Poke]

I know a dude who fell onto the subway tracks after a night out. He was waiting for the train, sneezed suddenly and lost his balance, and cracked his head on the rail. Thankfully the conductor spotted him, because he was out cold. It sucks bad enough being hurt, but I would hate hate hate to wind up on the subway tracks. They're absolutely filthy and teeming with rats.

Moral of the story: When you're drunk, spring for the cab.

[Jerk]

Sounds to me like the jury got this one right. You do have a duty of care not to run people over with trains, even if they ARE on the track.


You're right.

Get drunk, stumble onto a railroad track, get ran over. Of course it can't be your fault and must be the responsibility of someone else.

[Frozen Sooner]

How you got that out of what I wrote, I have no idea.

Do you think that the operator of a train has no duty to stop before running someone over if he can do so in a safe manner and has time to do so? Would your answer change if the guy wasn't drunk and just tripped?

The jury acknowledged that the guy shouldn't have been on the tracks in the first place, for what it's worth. They just didn't think that his being on the tracks was a license for the operator of the train to maim him if it was avoidable.

I'm sympathetic to the claim that the guy was hurt through his own misadventure, and that it produces a gut reaction to say that he deserves whatever he gets. However, the jury found that the driver had ample time to avoid injury to the plaintiff yet chose to hit him anyhow.

Duty
Breach
Injury

Open and shut.

[Jerk]

Would your answer change if the guy wasn't drunk and just tripped?
.

Yes, it would, if the train could stop in time.

Do you think that he would have stumbled onto the track if he were sober? Probably way less likely. Did the RR pour gin down his throat and tell him to go meandering around train tracks?

[John Kochtoston]

You're right.

Get drunk, stumble onto a railroad track, get ran over. Of course it can't be your fault and must be the responsibility of someone else.

The get run over part pretty much wasn't his fault.

Besides, he just watched the Rangers take a 6-1 pasting from the Devils in the playoffs. I was drunk and looking for a subway train to take me away after that game, too. :D

[Vaevictis]

Do you think that he would have stumbled onto the track if he were sober? Probably way less likely. Did the RR pour gin down his throat and tell him to go meandering around train tracks?

This is why, if you read the parts Froze bolded, the jury reduced the award.

[Jerk]

This is why, if you read the parts Froze bolded, the jury reduced the award.

Oh yes, I did read the "35% responsible" part. How they pulled that figure out of their a.ss is anyone's guess.

Usually, in the real world outside of NYC juries, when there is an accident, and one of the parties to said accident is inebriated, they are at fault.

I'm just saying.....that's what I've noticed.

[Vaevictis]

Oh yes, I did read the "35% responsible" part. How they pulled that figure out of their a.ss is anyone's guess.

They looked at the evidence, and made an estimate, I presume.


Usually, in the real world outside of NYC juries, when there is an accident, and one of the parties to said accident is inebriated, they are at fault.

It depends on the law. Some states handle partial responsibility by reducing the award by the amount of responsibility; some negate the award entirely.

---------------------

If you were out in the woods with a rifle with a buddy who was drunk, and the buddy stumbled into your line of fire -- and you saw him there, and deliberately chose to pull the trigger after noticing he was there, whose fault would it be?

I would submit that that net you a murder conviction, or at least manslaughter.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh yes, I did read the "35% responsible" part. How they pulled that figure out of their a.ss is anyone's guess.

Usually, in the real world outside of NYC juries, when there is an accident, and one of the parties to said accident is inebriated, they are at fault.

I'm just saying.....that's what I've noticed.

That's just simply not true. I can think of any number of scenarios where a drunk person who is injured by the action (or negligent inaction) of another would win in every jurisdiction in the country.

Nobody is disputing that had the inebriate been sober it is likely he would not have been on the tracks on the first place. Simple presence (drunk or sober) of a person on tracks is not a license to injure that person. The proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury was not his drunkenness, it was the decision of the driver to not stop the train.

Had the driver not had time to stop the train, or had there been no reason for a prudent person to think that what was on the tracks was a human being, then there was no duty of care owed by the driver. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that both of those defenses were raised by counsel, in fact. The plaintiff demonstrated by the preponderance of evidence that neither defense was true.

[Okla-homey]

FWIW, under Oklahoma law, if a plaintiff is deemed by the jury to be 50% or more at fault, that plaintiff gets zip in damages. He may win the case, but he gets nuttin'

Just saying.

[Frozen Sooner]

Is Oklahoma all-or-nothing, so that in the above case the damage award would not have been mitigated by the contributory negligence of the injured party?

[Jerk]

FWIW, under Oklahoma law, if a plaintiff is deemed by the jury to be 50% or more at fault, that plaintiff gets zip in damages. He may win the case, but he gets nuttin'

Just saying.

Well, then...I'd say 100 proof equals > 50% responsibility. Guilty! For crimes against all of humanity.

52zUW_naKKw

[Okla-homey]

Is Oklahoma all-or-nothing, so that in the above case the damage award would not have been mitigated by the contributory negligence of the injured party?

I don't know what you mean by "all or nothing" unless you're describing a jurisdiction in which any degree of contributory negligence by the plaintiff bars any recovery.

As far as Oklahoma goes, we are a comparitive negligence jurisdiction in which the trier of fact generally assigns degrees of fault to all the parties to a negligence case. Like I said, if the plaintiff is determined to be 50% or more at fault, he cannot recover any cash.

Here's how it works. You and Susie get in a wreck. Susie is hurt and her damages (med bills, lost wages, etc.) are $100K. You were cited by the cops for speeding, and running a red light at the instant you hit poor Susie.

However, just prior to your schwacking her, Susie was driving while eating a Sonic cheeseburger, texting on her phone, and plucking her eyebrows and somehow you prove all that. The jury determines all Susie's activities make her 40% responsible for the wreck, reasoning had she been paying attention, she could have avoided the wreck. Thus, her $100K damages are reduced to $60K and that's all she gets. If Susie's activitities had equalled her being 50% or more at fault, she'd get nothing.

[Frozen Sooner]

Nah. What I was asking was that if defendant was 50+1% liable for the injury then the full amount of damages was awarded. Apparently not.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Meh. THA's just trying to say that he wants to cap the incomes of people who he doesn't agree with politically. He's not the first one in this thread to come up with that singularly un-American point of view.

[/johnny carson voice as Carnac]Oh, not so fast liver breathe...[/johnny carson voice as Carnac] ;)

Never said that or implied that. I don't begrudge anyone making and earning as much as they possibly can. Just don't go and do it, then tell me I can't or I need help in determining how I need to spend my money or that I earn too much money after you have already gotten there... That's all.

Hell I'm all for the American Dream and I want EVERYONE - including ME, to share in that and make as much money as they can think of. We may disagree on how much social or fiscal responsibility we want to give to the Federal government, but I suspect we agree on the making as much as possible aspects.

[I Am Right]

" Abort Obama not the unborn" this will get the Secret Police after you, oops, not the Secret Police, that is from Russia, the Secret Service.