Posts Tagged ‘jury’

A Columbia County jury awarded $1.5 million to the family of a patient whose pulmonary hemorrhage was allegedly misdiagnosed by a Bloomsburg doctor. The law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price filed a medical malpractice suit on behalf of the family of Bruce Whitmire, 43, against the doctor, Donald A. Remaly, alleging he had mistakenly treated Whitmire for pneumonia.

“What killed him was that he was allowed to bleed into his lungs for three weeks,” said personal injury attorney Patrick Dougherty, who along with Attorney Brian Walsh represented the Whitmires. Whitmire, a truck driver, died on April 10, 2000.

A Columbia County jury found Remaly negligent in his care of Whitmire. It awarded $444,000 in damages to the victim’s family, $5,067 to cover the cost of Whitmire’s funeral and $1,050,933 to compensate for his suffering and mental and physical pain. This represents the largest jury verdict in the history of Columbia County.

A Lackawanna County Jury decided that General Motors Corp. owes a Scranton man $693,000.00 as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff, John Lance, suffered injuries after crashing into a tree while pulling into a driveway. Legal papers filed by personal injury Attorney Joseph Price of the DLP Law Firm alleged that the accident resulted from an improperly installed crank shaft on the plaintiff’s Chevrolet vehicle. The crash resulted in injuries throughout Mr. Lance’s spine that prevented him from working for several years.

The jury award granted $620,000.00 to Mr. Lance for pain and suffering. The remainder of the award was for medical expenses and lost wages.

The Complaint stated that the steering failed because a bolt in the crank shaft’s pulley broke causing the pulley and the harmonic balancer to fall from the front of the engine. A report prepared by General Motors subsequent to the accident appeared to confirm this contention. Attorney Price indicated “The jury was able to decide from the facts presented that there was an obvious flaw with the vehicle. This flaw caused severe injury to my client. I’m pleased that the jury saw this for what it was and issued a verdict in favor of Mr. Lance”.

A Lackawanna County Court jury awarded $565,000.00 to a Plains Township woman who was injured in a fall from a wheelchair at the Clarks Summit State Hospital. The plaintiff, Ana Dembroski, was represented by Attorney Joseph Price from the DLP Law Firm. A three part verdict awarded Mrs. Dembroski. $435,000.00 for pain and suffering, $24,000.00 for medical bills, and $106,000.00 to Mrs. Dembroski’s husband for loss of consortium.

The jury found that the fall broke the plaintiff’s left arm, torn her rotator cuff and aggravated pre-existing conditions in her neck and lower back.

The accident occurred when the Dembroskis were at the hospital to visit a patient. They were told use a rear entrance because the elevator was out of operation.

“I am proud to represent people like the Dembroskis” commented Attorney Price, “It’s what we do here at DLP. I’m happy that the jury was able to recognize the obvious negligence in this case and provide my client with a fair and proper award”.

Fonzie was cruising down Route 348 on his Harley Davidson heading towards his favorite McDonald’s. Richie was pulling out of the gas station and could have sworn he looked both ways but drove directly into the path of Fonzie. Poor Fonzie went flying over Richie’s car, landing flat on his back and having some pretty substantial injuries as a result.

Fonzie’s family contacted an attorney and suit was filed against Richie. During the pre-trial investigation, it was learned that Fonzie was driving his cycle without his light on in violation to the law. Richie took the position that had Fonzie had his light on, his motorcycle would have been more readily apparent, and Richie would not have pulled out into Fonzie’s path.

Issue: Does Richie have a leg to stand on?

Answer: The jury will be able to take into consideration what will be considered the comparative negligence of Fonzie for not having his light on. Nevertheless, if the jury feels that despite the fact that Fonzie did not have the light on, that Richie, by pulling out, was 50% or more negligent, Fonzie will still be able to recover an award. In all likelihood, in this particular case, a jury will find some degree of negligence on behalf of Fonzie but apportion the lion’s share against Richie.

There are more and more motorcycles on the road now, weather permitting, and people must realize that a motorcycle rider on his cycle has all the rights and privileges as an automobile, despite the smaller size of the cycle. Likewise, the motorcycle rider must obey all laws that are applicable to vehicles.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

A friend of mine sent me an email the other day which set forth information and “facts” involving six “outrageous” lawsuits and trumpeted the need for tort reform. The email stated, in part, as follows:

This is what’s wrong with the world:
1.January, 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson’s son.
2. June, 1998: Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn’t notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal.
3. October, 1998: Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Penn., was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn’t re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Dickson sued the homeowner’s insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.
4. October, 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor’s beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
5. May, 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
6. December, 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
7. December, 2001: In November, 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago.

Now I had received several emails like this over the years and the facts and circumstances seemed too far-fetched to merit a response. The message of these emails alludes to the need for tort reform in light of the odious conduct of the plaintiffs and the outrageous jury awards. As a lawyer, you develop a tough skin as the public views the profession as greedy and opportunistic. But this time I decided to search the internet and see if I could find any information on these seven lawsuits referenced in the email. The internet has spurred the mass proliferation of emails which dispense information to thousands of people as emails are forwarded with the click of a button. I thought that the facts of these tort-reform championing emails smacked of urban legend -a type of a modern folklore consisting of stories thought to be factual by those circulating them. Urban legends are not necessarily untrue, but they are often distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized over time. Often, upon receiving an email with a seemingly improbable premise (alligators living in the Manhattan sewers, “Paul” from the “Wonder Years” is now Marilyn Manson, etc.), I access www.snopes.com, an internet website which debunks or confirms the accuracy of these mass-circulated emails.
Lo and behold, snopes.com has debunked ALL SEVEN OF THE “CASES” IN THE EMAIL AS TOTALLY FALSE!!!! A search of the names of the parties to the lawsuits and the courts involved failed to reflect any such court filings or jury awards.
We live in a world where lawyers are viewed with scorn and discontent. In this climate, such emails meet with a receptive public perception as the current feeling is against large jury awards for bogus claims. But the call for tort reform as championed by big business and the insurance lobby potentially denies those in need of a legal remedy their day in court and declines them their right to be heard. “Caps” on jury awards is also unfair to those who are seriously injured as they may deserve a large award to fairly compensate them for their damages caused by the conduct of another. Big business stands to profit immensely from tort reform and capping jury awards. Capping an award will not deter a large corporation who may be able to afford to pay the damages.
So, the next time you receive a “chain” email that talks about an outrageous jury award, do yourself a favor and research some of the the facts. Remember, don’t believe everything you read..and only half of what you see.