Study Group Review 11.6.11
Study Group Review 11.6.11
Study Group Review 11.6.11
11/6/11
Hammontree v. Jenner D had epileptic seizure and drove his car into P's shop causing property damage and personal injury; D had long history of epilepsy and had been taking dilantin and then phelantin to control; Dr. Hyatt testified that D's condition was largely under control; D had not had a seizure in years. DMV was aware of D's condition. P dropped negligence claim during the trial and objected to giving negligence instructions in closing
Study Notes Page 2
P dropped negligence claim during the trial and objected to giving negligence instructions in closing arguments; P then waived closing arguments to jurors
Objective: P wants the court to override the established law of the state; to make drivers strictly at fault similar to manufacturers; argues , like manufacturers, drivers with histories of conditions are the only persons in the position to know of possible defects; only s/he can anticipate the hazards and conditions that may put others at risk.
Holding: Court declines P's argument analogizing drivers and manufacturers. Court says this policy does not apply and it's wrong to automatically distribute costs to insurance carriers. Making the requested change creates a complicated set of issues for fixing responsibility. If that's the route that these cases should go, it should be up the legislature to establish that. Finally, the suggested change does not except drivers who have a sudden debilitation for which they had no prior knowledge nor warning. Synthesis: Procedure in tort cases Importance of jury Importance of motion practice Strict liability vs. negligence Strict liability is a rule; negligence is a standard Under SL the P wins, under negligence P loses. Doctrine v Policy Which rule applies? Policy helps us decide.
Damages: Tangible: medical costs, loss of opportunity; loss of income. Projections of losses may be difficult; future money valuation, accurate vision of medical needs must be well calculated because you can only sue once and it must cover all needs. Intangible: pain & suffering costs; if law seeks to restore P to previous whole, inasmuch as possible, these costs must be considered; they may also serve a punitive role,.
Collecting on Judgments Can be difficult; unless D has substantial assets, efforts to execute the ruling are often less than fruitful and expensive. If parties have little to no assets, blood != stone.
Attorney's Fees In most countries, losing parties pay atty's fees. In US, that was feared to deny "differently monied" people the ability to pursue justice. Many attys work on contingency. Appellate Focus: Only about 2% of cases go to trial and a small percentage of those are appealed. Appellate decisions are therefore a small but very influential section of law. As opposed to contracts, attys generally enter tort situations after the fact, often when one party is angry; usually no continuing interest to keep them civil; often tortuous events happen in a hotly disputed, very brief instant.
NO-FAULT SCHEMES Workers compensation, other legislatively-designed compensation systems (Black Lung Disease, Childhood Vaccines, 911 and BP Spill) Often guarantee limited compensation but deny P the right to sue in tort Major advantages: cheaper to administer and dont overload the courts. Major disadvantage: might not satisfy our desires for corrective justice and/or might underdeter Black Lung Disease:
Study Notes Page 3
Black Lung Disease: Must prove that miner has BLD, completely incapacitated, and definitely got it from coal mining. Then compensation is from last employer at a percentage of pay rate plus medical payments. Consistencies btw BLD & Worker's Comp Scheduled income replacement benefits Full medical expenses recoverable No intangible loss recovery Periodic payments Funded by employer contribution Severely limit tort suits