Civil Law

So Bad He Was Good?

Watched parts of a trial yesterday. It was a plaintiff's attorney that I'd never seen before against an attorney against whose firm I have a number of cases. The plaintiff's attorney was awkward and seemingly ill-prepared. He didn't seem to have his questions lined up and planned on just hoping his client could give her story in narrative form. Defense counsel repeatedly objected to the narrative and the judge sustained the objections.

The plaintiff's attorney did have the advantage of the fact that the defendant didn't show up for trial. Allegedly, he was unable to make it in to town from Nebraska or Kansas or Oklaholma or some such state. That always is a good thing for a plaintiff (issues of insurance coverage notwithstanding).

In closing argument, the plaintiff's attorney repeatedly commented that defendant has produced no evidence. Defense counsel repeatedly objected saying that a defendant has no burden of proof and the Court sustained the objection. While I think there is some issue as to whether it is fair commentary to point out a defendant has adduced no evidence, the judge sustained the objections. Moreover, the plaintiff's attorney was so bent on pointing out the lack of defense evidence that he entirely failed to comment on the strengths of his own unrefuted case.

He went on and on about defense counsel claiming there was an X-Files-type conspiracy theories between plaintiff and the plaintiff's doctors. It might have been effective if it wasn't so rambling. Maybe he could have used a tag line like: "The truth isn't out there. It was up there (pointing to the witness stand) from where my client and her doctor testified."

I spoke to another plaintiff's attorney who was watching the closing arguments and he wasn't too impressed with the close. There were times where I found it downright painful to listen to what he was trying to say.

But what do I know? The jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $6,500 on a case with around $2,500 in medical bills. More than 2-1/2 times the bills so not bad for a "whiplash" type case. I guess I just don't know if I can be bad enough to get that good of a result.

Witness for the Plaintiff

We just received this police report from Palos Hills, Illinois. The case involves a little girl who was getting an ice cream from an ice cream truck which had its "Stop - Children" sign activated. Unfortunately, a passing motorist didn't heed the sign and struck the child as she crossed the street to a park.

The police arrived and took statements from various witnesses in the area. Note the police officer's note regarding witness number 3. Click on the image for a larger view.

Apparently, the police officer didn't think that blindness prevented the witness from "witnessing" the accident. Sure, a witness has other faculties at his or her disposal. One can testify that the car "sounded like its engine was racing" or "I could feel a strong breeze from the car as it went by". Maybe the blind witness could even testify he or she heard the child "fly into the tree"; however, when it comes to describing the operation of a passing car and giving an exact speed, I would think that vision would be a requirement.

Should be interesting.

Justice Prevails

Washington D.C. Administrative Law Judge, Roy Pearson, lost a lawsuit involving pants that he took to a dry cleaners and subsequently were misplaced. The pants were ultimately found again but that didn't satisfy Pearson. He filed suit against the shop for the misplacement of the pants and for violation of a D.C. consumer protection statute -- the cleaners had a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the wall and since the judge wasn't satisfied, the store breached its warranty under the statute. The claim on the lost pants were subsequently dropped. The lawsuit sought damages in excess of $54 million dollars.

$10,000's worth of defense attorney's fees later, the dry cleaner operators prevailed with the judge hearing the claim ruled that the dry cleaners did not owe Pearson anything and that Pearson would have to pay approximately $5,000 in the defendants' court costs. The judge reserved ruling on whether Pearson will have to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.

The American Bar Association is looking into sanctions against Pearson for filing a frivolous lawsuit and action has been instituted directed at removing Pearson from office. As an ALJ, it is unlikely that Pearson was voted into office but he can be removed by those who appointed him. Losing a $100,000 job seems to be worth his vindictive pursuit of this joke of a claim.

For more on this story, click here.

Just Another Day at the Office

Today I had a doctor's evidence deposition scheduled for a case set for trial on March 27th. (In case you didn't know, I'm a lawyer). An evidence deposition is taken when a witness is not available to testify at trial. The transcript of the testimony is then read to the jury as if the witness had testified live. Doctors generally do these depositions because coming to court to testify live disrupts their practice and treatment of patients. I prefer live testimony but you have to try to accomodate the doctors the best you can.

I had some difficulty in scheduling this doctor's deposition because she had an unusual schedule and opposing counsel also had a very difficult schedule to accomodate. After several months and numerous cancellations, the deposition was scheduled for today at a church on the north side of Chicago. The doctor is a member at the church and thought she could get access to a room in the church where we could take the deposition.

Opposing counsel, the court reporter and myself arrived and the doctor came by to say she couldn't get into the church and we would have to do the deposition at her house about two blocks away. I rode with the doctor to her house (she was my client's treating physician following a motor vehicle collision back in December 2001). Defense counsel rode with the court reporter and followed us.

At the doctor's house, she let me out so she could back her large SUV into the one car garage. After I got out I walked over to the house gate and heard a loud yelp behind me. I turned to see a man by the doctor's driver's side window leaning in. As I turned the doctor backed into the garage and the court reporter and other attorney came walking up to the gate. The man then went around the back of the garage out of view.

The doctor left the garage and came into the gated area. She was crying and distraught. Apparently, the man was her neighbor and leaned into her window to tell her that he was going to cut her throat. She told us that the day before he had pointed his finger at her like a gun and went "Bang, bang, you're dead." She called the police to make a report on that.

When we got into the house, she started to arrange us for the deposition and told us that she'd call the police again after the deposition was done. Opposing counsel and I, persuaded her to call the police immediately. We then agreed that the deposition would have to be rescheduled (again) because the situation was just too volatile. The doctor was a jumble of nerves and emotions and noone wanted to proceed with a possible lunatic lurking around outside. Our main concern was for the doctor's safety (and our own).

The police arrived and the doctor made a report. The officer seemed to know the individual in question from previous complaints throughout the neighborhood. Counsel and I agreed to a new date and agreed that I would bring an emergency motion to continue the trial. Hopefully, the judge will be understanding of the situation. Given my knowledge of the judge's temperment, I think she will be.

Before the deposition, opposing counsel, the court reporter and I exchanged stories of the oddest depositions we had taken in the past. After today, we all agreed we had a new top story. We walked the court reporter to her car, then defense counsel and I walked to my car which was parked nearby. I then drove her back to the area around the church where she had parked. Definitely the epitome of "civil" practice.

Courtroom Humor

Lawsuit: Cops shot my dog!

February 21, 2007, 5:51 PM CST

A Chicago man who says police shot and killed his dog last year while chasing a fleeing suspect filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the city and two police officers.Calvin Hale, 68, alleges he was in his backyard when a police officer ran into the yard and stumbled on his 10-year-old Akita, Lady.

"The next I know, I heard a shot, and she started to holler," Hale said Wednesday. " I told [the police officer] 'You shot my dog,' and he just kept running."

The incident occurred at about 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 26, 2006, Hale said.Hale said his dog had no history of biting or bad behavior. The lawsuit filed in Cook County (Illinois) Circuit Court seeks unspecified damages of more than $50,000. City officials offered to pay Hale for the dog, but could not reach an agreement on the amount, Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle said. She declined to comment on the lawsuit. Hale's attorney, Amy Breyer of Chicago, is one of a small number of lawyers who specialize in animal-related cases and sometimes seek to expand the reach of animal law.Breyer said police could not shoot a child in the yard without justification, and "my feeling is it's not acceptable with non-human family members" either.

Article by Michael J. Higgins, Chicago Tribune staff reporter