TAC said:
And, you know that, how, exactly? Just because it might seem logical to you, does not mean it will seem logical to a jury. Ask a lawyer about juries. Most trial lawyers will tell you that juries are unpredicable.
So, so true.
See,
e.g., the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. You would be surprised what some jurors focus on when they deliberate. It is definitely not always what the lawyers on either side think is important.
TAC said:
I've said this before...when the tort system is changed so that if you sue someone and lose, YOU pay the defendant's attorneys fees and ALL court costs, then, and only then, will these kinds of lawsuits stop..
Agreed, and that raises an interesting point. In Florida, you are entitled to serve something known as a "proposal for settlement." If the plaintiff serves the proposal, and the defendant rejects it, and then the plaintiff wins a verdict at trial 25% or more over the amount of the settlement offer, the plaintiff can recover all of his attorney's fees.
(Ex: Plaintiff offers to settle for $100,000, defendant rejects and plaintiff wins $150,000 at trial. Under a contingent fee agreement, the plaintiff's attorney could get 35-45% of that $150,000. However, because of the proposal for settlement, the attorney could recover all of his fees based on his normal hourly rate from the defense, and would not recover the contingent fee amount. So, if the lawyer, based on his hourly rate, would have billed over $1 million in fees, the defense would have to pay it, even though the client only recovered $150,000. Trust me, this happens. I have seen it.)
Now, this rule does work both ways. Disney could offer to settle the case, and if Plaintiff rejected, and then won 25% or more less than what Disney offered, Disney could recover all of its attorneys fees. (I.e., Disney offers $50,000, plaintiff rejects and is only awarded $10,000 by the jury, Disney could recover all of its attorney's fees.). This, in theory, should help reduce frivilous lawsuits, but what if the plaintiff has no money. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, so to speak, and most corporations don't want the negative publicity of going after a family for attorney's fees.
You can see the headlines now: "Multi-billion dollar company Disney sues middle class family of five for attorney's fees, threatens to take their house."
TAC said:
So, would you, based upon the information you have at the present time, have taken the case for the plaintiffs ?
I would not. I have not seen the complaint, nor the medical records, but based on what I have seen, I do not think they have a good case. I think if the case ultimately gets moved into federal court (which I suspect Disney will attempt to do if possible), it will get dismissed without Disney paying a dime. In interest of fair disclosure, however, I am admittedly biased by the fact that I do all defense work.
