phreddy wrote:

Sounds to me that she had a valid argument.  In California jurisdictions must have traffic studies to set speed limits.

Here's a case that will give you a chuckle Headkick.  Not long ago a friend of mine, was hired as a expert witness by the attorney suing PG&E (big electric utility) for a wrongful death.  PG&E, which has tons of very good lawyers, papered them to death for over two years.  But, true to its bureaucratic nature, when the jury trial date arrived, PG&E's attorney in charge of the case was on vacation, so they sent in a rookie.  During the direct examination, the rookie was obviously out of his depth and not asking the right questions.  During a break my friend walked out of the courtroom chatting with the plaintiff's attorney.  When they got back the PG&E attorney made the mistake of demanding my friend tell the jury what the conversation was about.  After the judge instructed my friend he had to answer the question, he replied, "Well, Mr. Simons told me you obviously know nothing about this case, you are a total incompetent, and that I should simply continue answering your questions even though they aren't relevent."

If they send in unqualified counsel, they deserve whatever happens.  Did they settle before the trial was over?

phreddy wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Sounds to me that she had a valid argument.  In California jurisdictions must have traffic studies to set speed limits.

Here's a case that will give you a chuckle Headkick.  Not long ago a friend of mine, was hired as a expert witness by the attorney suing PG&E (big electric utility) for a wrongful death.  PG&E, which has tons of very good lawyers, papered them to death for over two years.  But, true to its bureaucratic nature, when the jury trial date arrived, PG&E's attorney in charge of the case was on vacation, so they sent in a rookie.  During the direct examination, the rookie was obviously out of his depth and not asking the right questions.  During a break my friend walked out of the courtroom chatting with the plaintiff's attorney.  When they got back the PG&E attorney made the mistake of demanding my friend tell the jury what the conversation was about.  After the judge instructed my friend he had to answer the question, he replied, "Well, Mr. Simons told me you obviously know nothing about this case, you are a total incompetent, and that I should simply continue answering your questions even though they aren't relevent."

If they send in unqualified counsel, they deserve whatever happens.  Did they settle before the trial was over?

Yes.  They did settle, but not completely due to my friend's testimony.  The facts were very clear.  A PG&E powerline was hanging too low and the dead guy ran into it while driving a piece of equipment that should have easily cleared under it.  Seems it had been that way for a long time, and wasn't caused by a storm or other natural event.  As soon as that came out in court, the teams huddled and PG&E offered a sizable settlement to the family.  Of course they knew this all along, but they are notorious bullies and win many cases because most PI attorneys won't take them on for a contingent fee and plaintiffs can't afford to pay the fare.

I figured that was why they sent someone incompetent.  They knew the trial wasn't going to go all the way and didn't want to waste the manpower.  My kids keep telling me that I should start doing plaintiff's personal injury and wrongful death litigation because they want me to make more money (because they erroneously think that it would mean more vacations and videogames).  I don't have the stomach for it.  It takes a certain personality type to delight in making huge sums of money off of others' tragedies.  I have an acquaintance who is a PI attorney.  He can talk about a kid killed by a utlity truck without a trace of emotion.  All he sees are dollar signs.  Plaintiffs need attorneys like that, but I don't know how he can sleep at night after seeing all the horrible photographs and reading all of the grizzly details of his cases.

--When the judge then began asking Cashman questions, Downs objected to her "questioning the witness."

Like the old saying goes, "The (Wo)man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
And as for the natural blonde, "A friend was applying the hair color."  So why didn't she sue that friend too?

Last edited by sierrabravo (2008-10-09 12:45:18)