Wendy Davis
- Thread starter Vol Horn 4 Life
- Start date
Mr. Deez, I just thought I would mention that your posts are almost always well written and well thought-out. Not that I necessarily agree with you up and down the line, but usually when anyone posts longer than about 200 words, I just skip it. I've gotten to where I'll at least take a shot at reading through yours.
Is that a big sausage? I thought maybe it was a gruesome trophy he got off some yell leader.
I hear Wendy Davis likes "wild sausage". Maybe she's a fit for the position after all.
D
dillohorn
Guest
Wild sausage wouldn't be able to pay for her Harvard tuition, nor could it take her children off of her hands for her.
D
dillohorn
Guest
Now Texas democrats want Abbott to provide proof that he really needs a wheelchair.........democrats are lower than scum.
does it bother any of the tort reforming republicans that their hero got rich suing a homeowner because a tree in the guy's front yard fell on him while he was jogging by? That seems like a pretty frivolous lawsuit to me. The damages are real but the liability sounds like bs to me.
D
dillohorn
Guest
I'd like to tar (and feather) every democrat on the planet.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
6721: I have spent most of the last thirty years defending people for insurance companies and in a lot of cases was glad to recommend paying. Most of the hotly contested cases involve situations where there are major damages but contested liability.
I don't know the facts about the falling tree or why the homeowner was at fault but I do know that there are plenty of cases in which the damages are so horrendous that the carrier will pay huge amounts to avoid paying more on the offchance they get hit. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the carrier saw a young law grad with a bright prosperous future ahead of him and decided not to take a chance on getting hit for tens of millions and paid in the low seven figures.
Does anybody know how much the case settled for or anything about the liability facts?
My experience tells me most folks are against frivolous lawsuits but never think theirs are.
PS: I will not vote for either of them under any circumstance
I don't know the facts about the falling tree or why the homeowner was at fault but I do know that there are plenty of cases in which the damages are so horrendous that the carrier will pay huge amounts to avoid paying more on the offchance they get hit. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the carrier saw a young law grad with a bright prosperous future ahead of him and decided not to take a chance on getting hit for tens of millions and paid in the low seven figures.
Does anybody know how much the case settled for or anything about the liability facts?
My experience tells me most folks are against frivolous lawsuits but never think theirs are.
PS: I will not vote for either of them under any circumstance
Huisache, you are absolutely right. If Abbott's case was brought by anybody else, Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the tort reformers would say it was ******** and say that the homeowner was the victim. They'd say the injured person was just trying to look for deep pockets and somebody to blame for what was a freak accident. I think it's horrible to make fun of a guy for being in a wheelchair, but he is a hypocritical bastard for what he has supported.
Here's a link to the details on his settlement. As you can see, his settlement is being paid out over the course of his life. Assuming he lives past 2022, his settlement will be worth in the $9M - $11M range.
My understanding is that Abbott was jogging, and the tree fell causing his injury. The homeowner had hired a tree company to inspect all of his trees about a year before the accident. It showed some decay in the tree at issue, and the company recommended fertilization, which the homeowner did. However, the tree fell anyway. The homeowner claimed and still claims that he didn't know that the tree was susceptible to falling.
The HB 4 tort reforms from 2003 would impact his case in a couple of ways. First, the "paid or incurred" law would gut his medical expenses. If any of his expenses were written off or adjusted by health insurance (or Medicare or Medicaid), the defendants would now get the benefit of those write-offs or adjustments. That wasn't true in 1986. That's big, but in addition, carriers use medical expenses as a factor in what they offer in pain and suffering, so that would also impact what he'd be offered for noneconomic damages. So his entire damage award would be lower today.
Second, in 1986, it was much easier to hold a defendant joint and severally liable (meaning liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages rather than in proportion to the defendant's fault) than it is today. The result is that both defendants today would have a better chance of pointing the finger at each other in court, making them less likely to offer as much pre-trial. And of course, if they could find some ******** empty chair defendant (someone with immunity, etc.), they could really have fun with it. They couldn't do that in 1986.
However, the biggest impact would be the evidentiary hurdles. In 1986, juries were given dramatically broader latitude to draw inferences from the evidence, and their verdicts were simply given a lot more deference by the courts.
In 2014, the jury wouldn't be allowed to just look at the situation and assume that the homeowner knew or should have known that the tree was an unreasonably dangerous condition. The plaintiffs would have to come up with some very specific evidence showing that he knew or should have known and not just in general. They'd have to show that he knew or should have known that that particular tree was dangerous at that particular time. If the homeowner did what the tree company told him to do (which he did), that's going to be very tough.
For illustration, keep in mind that a defendant can know that he has a leaking roof and know that it's raining outside, but the courts won't let a jury infer that he should have known there'd be water on the floor. A defendant can know that his ice machine consistently drops ice cubes on the floor, but unless he knew or should have known the particular cube that the plaintiff slipped on was on the floor, the jury can't infer that he should have known that a dangerous condition existed. That's the kind of scrutiny that would be applied to Abbott's evidence today. Nothing like that would have applied in 1986. Hell, if criminal convictions faced the same scrutiny, half the people in jail probably wouldn't be there.
They'd also have problems dealing with possible intervening causes. It had been a year since the tree company had examined the tree, and there had been heavy winds and storms in the weeks prior to the incident. How the hell would you prove that the decay caused the tree to fall as opposed to just weakening from the winds? Again, a jury's not going to be allowed to just assume that. Abbott would have to come up with very specific and non-speculative expert testimony on that point. Good luck with that. It's not going to be easy.
If any one of those problems arise, not only does Abbott not get $9M, he doesn't get his day in court at all. He doesn't get ****. In fact, he becomes liable for the carriers' taxable court costs. The overall impact is that the carriers are going to see a lot more opportunities and reasons to win, a much lower payout even if they lose, and a much stronger incentive to fight it out through the court system. Insurers pay to avoid risk, but they're not going to pay big money if they have good reason to believe the jury verdict won't even be respected by the courts. Today, they'd have very good reason to believe that.
Here's a link to the details on his settlement. As you can see, his settlement is being paid out over the course of his life. Assuming he lives past 2022, his settlement will be worth in the $9M - $11M range.
My understanding is that Abbott was jogging, and the tree fell causing his injury. The homeowner had hired a tree company to inspect all of his trees about a year before the accident. It showed some decay in the tree at issue, and the company recommended fertilization, which the homeowner did. However, the tree fell anyway. The homeowner claimed and still claims that he didn't know that the tree was susceptible to falling.
The HB 4 tort reforms from 2003 would impact his case in a couple of ways. First, the "paid or incurred" law would gut his medical expenses. If any of his expenses were written off or adjusted by health insurance (or Medicare or Medicaid), the defendants would now get the benefit of those write-offs or adjustments. That wasn't true in 1986. That's big, but in addition, carriers use medical expenses as a factor in what they offer in pain and suffering, so that would also impact what he'd be offered for noneconomic damages. So his entire damage award would be lower today.
Second, in 1986, it was much easier to hold a defendant joint and severally liable (meaning liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages rather than in proportion to the defendant's fault) than it is today. The result is that both defendants today would have a better chance of pointing the finger at each other in court, making them less likely to offer as much pre-trial. And of course, if they could find some ******** empty chair defendant (someone with immunity, etc.), they could really have fun with it. They couldn't do that in 1986.
However, the biggest impact would be the evidentiary hurdles. In 1986, juries were given dramatically broader latitude to draw inferences from the evidence, and their verdicts were simply given a lot more deference by the courts.
In 2014, the jury wouldn't be allowed to just look at the situation and assume that the homeowner knew or should have known that the tree was an unreasonably dangerous condition. The plaintiffs would have to come up with some very specific evidence showing that he knew or should have known and not just in general. They'd have to show that he knew or should have known that that particular tree was dangerous at that particular time. If the homeowner did what the tree company told him to do (which he did), that's going to be very tough.
For illustration, keep in mind that a defendant can know that he has a leaking roof and know that it's raining outside, but the courts won't let a jury infer that he should have known there'd be water on the floor. A defendant can know that his ice machine consistently drops ice cubes on the floor, but unless he knew or should have known the particular cube that the plaintiff slipped on was on the floor, the jury can't infer that he should have known that a dangerous condition existed. That's the kind of scrutiny that would be applied to Abbott's evidence today. Nothing like that would have applied in 1986. Hell, if criminal convictions faced the same scrutiny, half the people in jail probably wouldn't be there.
They'd also have problems dealing with possible intervening causes. It had been a year since the tree company had examined the tree, and there had been heavy winds and storms in the weeks prior to the incident. How the hell would you prove that the decay caused the tree to fall as opposed to just weakening from the winds? Again, a jury's not going to be allowed to just assume that. Abbott would have to come up with very specific and non-speculative expert testimony on that point. Good luck with that. It's not going to be easy.
If any one of those problems arise, not only does Abbott not get $9M, he doesn't get his day in court at all. He doesn't get ****. In fact, he becomes liable for the carriers' taxable court costs. The overall impact is that the carriers are going to see a lot more opportunities and reasons to win, a much lower payout even if they lose, and a much stronger incentive to fight it out through the court system. Insurers pay to avoid risk, but they're not going to pay big money if they have good reason to believe the jury verdict won't even be respected by the courts. Today, they'd have very good reason to believe that.
houstonearlers
100+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
