Jury Awards $21 million to Injured HAL Passenger

[sail7seas]

I agree with you about the oversized settlements that juries tend to hand out. They often get overturned. I wonder if this event will make the news the way the initial award did.

 

While I'm sure HAL is grateful, I don't think judges are allowed to accept thank-you gifts from happy defendants. :eek:

 

:D Made me laugh.

 

Judge would soon find themselves as Defendant if such a gift was offered and accepted. :eek:

 

[Viesczy]

Yes, and he won the Charleston contest!

 

The reason for that... "it was my head not my feet"! ;)

 

Just a money grab, folks gaming the system.

[Tampa Girl]

With all due respect, TG, you may want to re-read The Seattle Times article (or, better yet, read Judge Rothstein's opinion itself) before conjecturing about what Rothstein did or did not find/rule. Or save some time and re-read badtwin's post above as IMO it is a pretty good/accurate summary.

 

Have you read the article and, if so, what is there about the Judge's finding that Hausmann was not credible that you do not understand? And, yes, Badtwin is correct that the judge found that the verdict should be tossed also because relevent e-mails were wrongly destroyed. When witesses are found to be not credible, there then exists insufficient evidence to support a verdict. (I am very familiar with this argument, having used it often on behalf of an appellant.)

 

And, yes, all of us are conjecturing, based the upon the newspaper article, about the court's actual findings. Please note that Both Badtwin and I used the terms "appear" and "apparent."

[Cruiser 4 Life 66]

Federal Judge Tosses $21.5M Verdict

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-judge-tosses-215m-verdict-in-cruise-injury-case/

 

Good.

[avian777]

If you read the article, it suggests the verdict was set aside because the plaintiff had deleted emails that should have been produced in discovery, that is, turned over to the other side's attorneys as part of the pre-trial process.

 

Have you read the article and, if so, what is there about the Judge's finding that Hausmann was not credible that you do not understand? And, yes, Badtwin is correct that the judge found that the verdict should be tossed also because relevent e-mails were wrongly destroyed. When witesses are found to be not credible, there then exists insufficient evidence to support a verdict. (I am very familiar with this argument, having used it often on behalf of an appellant.)

 

And, yes, all of us are conjecturing, based the upon the newspaper article, about the court's actual findings. Please note that Both Badtwin and I used the terms "appear" and "apparent."

 

At the risk of extending our "conversation", I call your attention to the following:

 

1. The verdict/judgement were reversed because Judge Rothstein found Plaintiff guilty of Discovery misconduct and not because there was insufficient evidence to support it. And the issue of Plaintiff's credibility related to his testimony about the deleted and missing e-mails at the misconduct hearing and not at trial.
   
2. Nowhere in badtwin's post (reproduced above for your convenience) does he use either the word "appear" or the word "apparent".
   

As I suggested earlier, you may want to read Judge Rothstein's Opuinion and Order or at least re-read the Times article.

[serendipity1499]

With all due respect, TG, you may want to re-read The Seattle Times article (or, better yet, read Judge Rothstein's opinion itself) before conjecturing about what Rothstein did or did not find/rule. Or save some time and re-read badtwin's post above as IMO it is a pretty good/accurate summary.

 

At the risk of extending our "conversation", I call your attention to the following:

 

1. The verdict/judgement were reversed because Judge Rothstein found Plaintiff guilty of Discovery misconduct and not because there was insufficient evidence to support it. And the issue of Plaintiff's credibility related to his testimony about the deleted and missing e-mails at the misconduct hearing and not at trial.
   
2. Nowhere in badtwin's post (reproduced above for your convenience) does he use either the word "appear" or the word "apparent".
   

As I suggested earlier, you may want to read Judge Rothstein's Opuinion and Order or at least re-read the Times article.

 

I agree with Tampa Girl, the Judge stated Mr. Hausman was NOTa credible

witness..

 

This is an actual quote from the times article:

 

Quote The allegations prompted Rothstein to hold a hearing last month. She found Mizeur credible; her former boss not. Unquote

 

IMO this meant that the judge did not find Hausman to be a credible witness..

 

The next paragraph stated Quote

 

“As a witness, he came across evasive and untrustworthy,” the judge wrote. “He appeared to weigh each answer, not for its truthfulness, but to assess whether it would damage his case. Mr. Hausman also seemed to capitalize on his alleged brain injury when it was convenient for him. He was confused or claimed memory loss when confronted with a question or exhibit that appeared to undermine his claims, yet was animated and full or information when his testimony supported his case.”

 

Unquote

 

IMO both the above supports Tampa Girls post..But does it really make any difference why the judgment was overturned? Obviously you both are correct & the nitpicking is really not germane to the case..

Edited January 8, 2016 by serendipity1499

[TiogaCruiser]

Being we apparently have at least 2 attorneys participating in this thread, does this mean the whole suit can be restarted by Mr Hauseman? If so, how does the judges recent ruling affect things?

[richstowe]

Being we apparently have at least 2 attorneys participating in this thread, does this mean the whole suit can be restarted by Mr Hauseman? If so, how does the judges recent ruling affect things?

Because we have 2 lawyers , we must each send in a 5K retainer for their

legal opinions and a blank cheque for any further disbursements . :D

[avian777]

Being we apparently have at least 2 attorneys participating in this thread, does this mean the whole suit can be restarted by Mr Hauseman? If so, how does the judges recent ruling affect things?

 

Because we have 2 lawyers , we must each send in a 5K retainer for their

legal opinions and a blank cheque for any further disbursements . :D

 

The short answer is that Mr. Hausman does not have to re-file his claim against HAL, since the lawsuit was not dismissed by Judge Rothstein - she merely vacated the verdict and set the case for a new trial. Quite often in situations of this nature, the parties manage to settle the case before the re-trial.

 

... and now the really good news, no charge for my opinion ... although if you feel duty-bound to compensate me for my services, please let me know, and I will post mailing info and wire transfer instructions. :D

Edited January 9, 2016 by avian777

[richstowe]

The short answer is that Mr. Hausman does not have to re-file his claim against HAL, since the lawsuit was not dismissed by Judge Rothstein - she merely vacated the verdict and set the case for a new trial. Quite often in situations of this nature, the parties manage to settle the case before the re-trial.

 

... and now the really good news, no charge for my opinion ... although if you feel duty-bound to compensate me for my services, please let me know, and I will post mailing info and wire transfer instructions. :D

On one side, your client is a huge corp that had a 21 million award awarded against them . Yes you believe it is wrong and you now have more ammo to use BUT the legal system is expensive and another jury could sent another message (whatever that means) . So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

On the other side , you initially won and your client should be able perform for another jury that will wish to punish a huge corporation for malfunctioning automatic doors . But a judge set aside the verdict and the next jury may find your client is a fraud especially with the new info . The legal system is expensive and your firm has already invested a small fortune in this case with your opponents having deeper pockets . So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

So amount would you recommend your clients accept ? :confused:

 

(My lawyer once said the worst settlement is better then the best trial result . That's why he is my lawyer . ;))

Edited January 10, 2016 by richstowe

[GUT2407]

On one side, your client is a huge corp that had a 21 million award awarded against them . Yes you believe it is wrong and you now have more ammo to use BUT the legal system is expensive and another jury could sent another message (whatever that means) . So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

On the other side , you initially won and your client should be able perform for another jury that will wish to punish a huge corporation for malfunctioning automatic doors . But a judge set aside the verdict and the next jury may find your client is a fraud especially with the new info . The legal system is expensive and your firm has already invested a small fortune in this case with your opponents having deeper pockets . So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

So amount would you recommend your clients accept ? :confused:

 

(My lawyer once said the worst settlement is better then the best trial result . That's why he is my lawyer . ;))

 

 

Sounds like a sensible Lawyer.

 

These things are also darn expensive (thank goodness).

 

A commercial decision often needs to be made that its better to throw $X at someone to go away than pay the lawyers $X+ to run a trial, and still have the risk of a verdict against you (and matbe bad PR). Sad for lawyers but true and Good lawyers tell their clients that.

 

Then there is also the time staff are tied up with such hearings. If you've got a top executive on a few hundred thousand a year tied up in litigation, and perpetration for litigation for a year or more pretty much full time, what does that do to your business?

[GUT2407]

On one side, your client is a huge corp that had a 21 million award awarded against them . Yes you believe it is wrong and you now have more ammo to use BUT the legal system is expensive and another jury could sent another message (whatever that means) . So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

On the other side , you initially won and your client should be able perform for another jury that will wish to punish a huge corporation for malfunctioning automatic doors . But a judge set aside the verdict and the next jury may find your client is a fraud especially with the new info . The legal system is expensive and your firm has already invested a small fortune in this case with your opponents having deeper pockets . So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

So amount would you recommend your clients accept ? :confused:

 

(My lawyer once said the worst settlement is better then the best trial result . That's why he is my lawyer . ;))

 

No idea what I'd recommend, nor would any other half decent lawyer without reviewing all the evidence.

[avian777]

So whats a reasonable settlement ?

 

So amount would you recommend your clients accept ? :confused:

 

No idea what I'd recommend, nor would any other half decent lawyer without reviewing all the evidence.

 

I agree with GUT2407's advice and additionally would note that it depends on whether I am representing the Plaintiff or the Defendant. In other words, my settlement recommendation must take into account whether my client is going to pay or be paid as a result of the settlement.

Edited January 10, 2016 by avian777