On Monday I had to report for jury duty along with a couple hundred others. Thirty of us were called to a civil case which was expected to last probably four days. (Internal groan here.) Only seven of us would actually become jurors.
I was impressed that when the thirty of us potential jurors entered the court-room, everyone stood, including the judge and all those at the plaintiff's table and the defendant's table. It lent solemnity to the occasion.
The bare bones of the case were introduced. The plaintiff is a women in her upper eighties who was injured in an auto accident. She is suing for reimbursement for injuries, pain, and suffering. The defendant, who was also in his upper eighties, is now deceased from non-related causes, so his estate represented by his son, is being sued. The estate admits the deceased man was at fault in the accident, but disputes some of the plaintiff's claims.
Seventeen of the thirty of us were chosen to enter the jury box for questioning. We started with the usual name, occupation, education, occupation of spouse, ages and occupations of parents and children. Also, curiously enough, our hobbies and interests. Then the lawyers introduced themselves.
The lawyer for the plaintiff was non-imposing and professional. He started off by distancing himself from "those lawyers" on TV ads and billboards. He was unassuming in manner. I think it was a very polished role. He was slick. He had been a DA for a year, but has been in private practice as a personal injury lawyer for 28 years.
They proceeded to question the seventeen of us....had we ever been injured in an auto accident, had we been involved in a court case about an auto accident, etc. Then the plaintiff's lawyer asked about our opinions regarding litigation in the US. Most of us agreed that our society is too litigious and that there should be more personal responsibility. Several of us remarked on the McDonalds' case where the woman spilled her hot coffee in her lap while driving and then sued McDonalds, as being an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
The plaintiff's attorney then asked about our feeling that the driver who was at fault for the accident be held responsible even though he is deceased? And how would we feel if we knew he had been drinking prior to the accident, and had had one for the road? (See how they slide in the details?)
He also mentioned the at-fault driver's age and asked how we felt about people in their eighties driving. A few mentioned their thoughts that no one over 85 should drive. I said I thought that that was unfair; of course older people should be allowed to drive if they are mentally and physically able.
He then went on to ask our feelings about reimbursement for pain and suffering. He threw out the number of $800,000 several times. I think he was inuring our thinking to that number by the repetition Most of us agreed we would need to hear the evidence before agreeing to that.
Then the lawyer for the defense spoke. She was younger, maybe in her thirties, but very professional as well. She also brought up the topic of people taking responsibility for their actions. What would we think if we heard that the plaintiff not only was aware that the deceased defendant had been drinking, but that she had bought him a drink, and had then gotten in the car with him anyway? Should some of the burden of responsibility lie with her? (Oh the twists and turns this case will take.)
It will be interesting, to be sure, and frustrating. There will be several expert witnesses brought to testify. I won't ever get to know the outcome as I wasn't one of the seven chosen. They didn't tell us why we weren't chosen. If I had to guess I would think, for me, it is because I was a case manager for an insurance company for several years and dealt with cost containment. Or possibly because I felt you couldn't just blame the accident on the driver's age. Maybe it was just because I am a nurse. Who knows.
The courtroom is open. I could have gone and spent four days over there watching it all play out, but of course, I didn't. And after inuring us to the $800,000 number, do you think the attorney actually asked for a lesser amount and hoped to slide it by? I'm betting he did.
It all comes down to personal responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment