Interesting Court Case

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This is from Washington State.

A woman's car was rear ended and she worked up $22,000 in DC & LMT bills. She sued the driver of the vehicle that struck hers. The jury concluded she should have a good portion of her medical expenses paid, but concluded she did not suffer enough "pain & suffering" to make an award. The woman appealed to the state appellate court on theory that if a jury awards money for medical bills, there must be an award for pain & suffering, and was granted a new trial with court ordered direction to the jury to award her some money.

Interesting.

 

[maxiep]

Not as interesting as it is tragic.

"Pain and suffering" is just a term to get trial lawyers more money. It's unfortunate she was involved in a car accident that wasn't her fault, but it's not an excuse to get paid. She had her medical expenses covered; that's enough.

Gee, I wonder why insurance premiums are so expensive?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Not as interesting as it is tragic.

"Pain and suffering" is just a term to get trial lawyers more money. It's unfortunate she was involved in a car accident that wasn't her fault, but it's not an excuse to get paid. She had her medical expenses covered; that's enough.

Gee, I wonder why insurance premiums are so expensive?

And I agree. I've seen many juries award some money for the economic damages in an effort to help out the plaintiff, but still feel there was either no negligence against the defendant or that the plaintiff wasn't really "injured" but led along by a chiropractor.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

If the woman legitimately went through pain, and her life was altered for a period of time, then yeah I would say she deserves some money for pain and suffering.

It's only fair seeing as how insurance companies rip off people in giving settlements for much less than what cars are worth when the victims car is totaled.

 

[julius]

This kind of reminds me of the McDonalds case that people thought was proof of someone lying their way into millions (if you don't know about the story, do read up on it. It's interesting). Although for every case of someone doing something to gain more money, there is probably more cases of those people who are genuinely screwed over by insurance companies. I'm not sure she "deserves" pain and suffering compensation, but I don't think it's really anything but an anecdotal case.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If the woman legitimately went through pain, and her life was altered for a period of time, then yeah I would say she deserves some money for pain and suffering.

It's only fair seeing as how insurance companies rip off people in giving settlements for much less than what cars are worth when the victims car is totaled.

But what if a jury doesn't feel someone is really "injured"?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This kind of reminds me of the McDonalds case that people thought was proof of someone lying their way into millions (if you don't know about the story, do read up on it. It's interesting). Although for every case of someone doing something to gain more money, there is probably more cases of those people who are genuinely screwed over by insurance companies. I'm not sure she "deserves" pain and suffering compensation, but I don't think it's really anything but an anecdotal case.

Actually, I am very familiar with that case. That lady got everything she deserved. She was treated terribly by McDonalds. A quick brief:

That particular store had over 200 documented complaints about the coffee being too hot, but failed to act. Stella (the plaintiff’s first name) spilled some coffee on herself and eventually needed a skin graft the burn was so bad. She acknowledged to McDonalds the spilling was partly her fault, but they needed to accept responsibility for the temperature of the coffee and asked they pay ½ of her medical bills only. She didn’t want any money for pain & suffering. Over and over she asked and McDonalds treated her with contempt. Finally she sued and won a huge verdict. That verdict was so large mostly due to the way McDonalds treated her.

 

[julius]

Actually, I am very familiar with that case. That lady got everything she deserved. She was treated terribly by McDonalds. A quick brief:

That particular store had over 200 documented complaints about the coffee being too hot, but failed to act. Stella (the plaintiff’s first name) spilled some coffee on herself and eventually needed a skin graft the burn was so bad. She acknowledged to McDonalds the spilling was partly her fault, but they needed to accept responsibility for the temperature of the coffee and asked they pay ½ of her medical bills only. She didn’t want any money for pain & suffering. Over and over she asked and McDonalds treated her with contempt. Finally she sued and won a huge verdict. That verdict was so large mostly due to the way McDonalds treated her.

My original post pointed out that she did get what she deserved, and McDonalds was 100% (at least, I believe they were) at fault. But when I edited it, I deleted that portion of my post accidentally.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

My original post pointed out that she did get what she deserved, and McDonalds was 100% (at least, I believe they were) at fault. But when I edited it, I deleted that portion of my post accidentally.

Oh.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Not to be pedantic, but there is something missing from this story.

The court of Appeals wouldn't have overturned the verdict just because they disagree with the jury *on the facts*. There had to have been a legal screw-up. EG the trial judge gave the wrong jury instructions, or excluded evidence that the jury should have heard.

 

[MARIS61]

But what if a jury doesn't feel someone is really "injured"?

That's why we have Juries, and ultimately Judges, to insure Justice.

We can't possibly know since we weren't there hearing all the evidence.

Usually, medical bills = a significant amount of pain and suffering.

If you're not in pain and suffering, you don't even go to a Dr..

 

[Sedatedfork]

Not to be pedantic, but there is something missing from this story.

The court of Appeals wouldn't have overturned the verdict just because they disagree with the jury *on the facts*. There had to have been a legal screw-up. EG the trial judge gave the wrong jury instructions, or excluded evidence that the jury should have heard.

I don't think this is true. The jury did not award any pain and suffering. There was a motion for a new trial, that was denied. The court of appeals said that the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

 

[Sedatedfork]

That's why we have Juries, and ultimately Judges, to insure Justice.

We can't possibly know since we weren't there hearing all the evidence.

Usually, medical bills = a significant amount of pain and suffering.

If you're not in pain and suffering, you don't even go to a Dr..

So you don't think there are people that go to the doctor to drive up their claim even though they really aren't hurt? Doesn't sound like this was the case in this incident since the defendants conceded the plaintiff was injured, but I can assure you that there are people out there who seek medical attention merely to drive up the value of their claims.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

But what if a jury doesn't feel someone is really "injured"?

 

[Minstrel]

Pain and suffering is a legitimate reason for an award, if the person was extremely inconvenienced or hurt. If you're caused an enormous amount of pain, simply having your medical bills paid doesn't make it like the accident never happened. There's still all the quality of life decrease you went through due to the pain.

So, it depends entirely on the circumstances of each case, as far as I'm concerned.