Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

The Illinois Supreme Court made big news nationally when it issued its much awaited opinion in Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital yesterday, The court overturned in a 4-2 ruling the Illinois five-year-old medical malpractice cap on damages because limiting compensation for injured malpractice victims for pain and suffering violated the Illinois constitution.

Specifically, the court found that the Illinois malpractice cap violated the “separation of powers” clause because imposing a cap imposes on a decision that should be made not by legislatures but by juries.

The underlying lawsuit involves a catastrophic birth injury. Plaintiff’s lawyers alleged the infant Plaintiff’s severe cerebral palsy was caused by the negligence of the hospital, her obstetrician, and a nurse.

The appellate path taken in this case was atypical. Plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issue of whether the cap applied, which the trial court granted before the case was tried. Procedurally, this is odd and the dissenting opinion took exception to the idea of deciding this case without a verdict. I understand the dissent’s thinking on this. But the parties at least are best served taking this path because they both know how the law is going to be applied. This makes the case much easier to settle and settle fairly whichever direction the court takes. After the trial court’s ruling, the Defendants appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Essentially, the court found that a cap on damages is a legislative remittitur and the failure to leave the issue of remittitur to the court which decides the issue on a case-by-case basis represents legislative intrusion on the powers vested in the court by the Illinois constitution.

One favorite part of the opinion for me was the way the court responded to the defendant’s argument that other states had damage caps: “That ‘everybody is doing it’ is hardly a litmus test for the constitutionality of the statute.”

Continue reading "Illinois Malpractice Cap Ruled Unconstitutional" »

Guy breaks into your house. Your are terrified that harm will come to you, your spouse or your children. Yet something holds you back from taking decisive action to protect your family.. the threat of a civil lawsuit by the burglar.

To stop this insanity, House Bill 207 has been introduced by House Delegate William J. Frank from Baltimore County, to raise the negligence bar for people who use force against a home or office burglar to make them immune from civil liability unless they acted “with malice or gross negligence.”

Naturally, Maryland courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits by personal injury lawyers representing criminals who were injured breaking into homes of the innocent. Just ask John H. Josselyn who is with the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore:

Far too many attorneys are willing to initiate a civil action on behalf of criminals who allege that the victim, who was acting legally in self-defense, did something that violated the rights of the attacker. Defending a civil action, even when it is a frivolous lawsuit, involves great expense.

Let's take a breath and break this quote down and get our arms around whether there is even a portion of it that is not demonstrably false on its face.

Continue reading "Gross Negligence Standard for Homeowners Defending Their Homes" »

Yesterday, The Maryland Court of Appeals decided Prince George's County v. Longtin. The Plaintiff in this case was arrested for murdering his wife. When the real bad guy was found, Plaintiff brought a claim against Prince George’s County, alleging false imprisonment and, more significantly I think, that police officers engaged in a pattern or practice of “unconstitutional and unlawful detention and interrogation” and “excessive force and brutality." One fact that had to stand out to the jury to lend credibility to his claim: the police ignored DNA evidence that ruled out the Plaintiff, keeping him in jail another six months. The jury bought in, awarding over $6 million in damages, which included over a $1 million in punitive damages collectively against the police officers. Why don’t you remember reading about any of this? The murder was over 10 years ago. The wheels of justice sometimes cruise casually.

The jury appeal of this case is easy to see. It is transcendently awful enough to have your wife murdered. But being wrongfully accused when the evidence should have sent police in another direction and then being physically and mentally brutalized by police? It makes anyone’s top 5 nightmares list. These police officers crossed lines that would make Jimmy McNulty blush.

Still, there are limits to the ‘it could just as easily have been me” feeling you might be having reading this post. Plaintiff admitted to having a verbal and physical altercation with his wife just hours before her body was found. After the altercation, he got a knife and ran after her. Later, she turns up missing and murdered. So while I fault the police for a lot based on these reported facts, jumping to conclusions about Plaintiff guilt is not one of them. I mean, what are the chances?

That’s more on the facts than I planned but it is just an incredible story. Anyway, Prince George’s County argued – apparently without shame – from the beginning that that the Local Government Tort Claims act barred his claim because he did not provide adequate notice. Plaintiff responded with the complex legal theory of “how on earth can you expect me to give you notice when you have wrongfully imprisoned me for more than 180 days?”

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed, finding that an “ordinary prudent person” in Plaintiff’s situation could not have given notice in 180 days. I’m dumbing down a complex opinion, but I think that is an adequate summary.

What would have saved everyone a lot of time in this case and furthered justice in countless others would be if the Maryland legislature would simply abolish the Local Government Tort Claims and the Maryland Tort Claims Act. What exactly is the wisdom in treating government different from you and I when it comes to the statute of limitations? If we all agree it is fair that a local government can be sued in actions sounding in tort in the same manner and extent that anyone can be sued, why change the limitations period? I think the idea of governmental immunity is illogical and outdated but at least I understand the rationale. Altering the statute of limitations is a crude and illogical way to treat citizens in substantially similar situations in dissimilar ways.

Interesting historical footnote that may be of interest only to me: Prince George’s County was the first county in Maryland to waive sovereign immunity in 1970.

You can read the full opinion here.

Years ago, a personal injury lawyer in Southern California named Mitch Jackson started blogging. Mitch had great content and was posting frequently. One day I looked up and he disappeared, joining the list of talented people burned on blogging.

Mitch sent me an email this week telling me that he was up and blogging again. Check him out on Trial Lawyer Tips. The blog is directed to trial lawyers and has a very clear, conversational voice.

Jurors in Florida heard arguments yesterday in a lawsuit filed by the family of a 16 year-old boy who died while training at the IMG Academy’s International Performance Institute. According to the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family's lawyer, the sports academy should have performed a thorough enough physical examination before allowing the child to participate in strenuous exercise. The lawsuit also claims that the school ignored the fact that the child's father died of a heart condition at 33, a fact the lawsuit claims should have prompted further review of the child's health.

The death of a 16 year-old boy is just an unspeakably awful tragedy. Also bear in mind the caveat that the basis for my opinions is reading a newspaper article - an awful way to evaluate evidence.

That said, I'd have a hard time finding liability if I were a juror under the "school should have given the child a physical" theory. A 16 year-old boy's parents should know that playing basketball is exercising intensely. Parents should not be able to pass that duty onto a school or anyone. I don't blame his mother or anyone else for not getting the boy a physical. It is easy to see how someone could misinterpret the health of a handsome boy who looks very physically fit (the article has a picture). But I'm not sure blaming the school is fair, either.

The Drug and Device Law Blog has an interesting post on how long lawyers stick with blogging. The short version: most lawyers fail miserably at blogging over the long haul.

Lawyers blog for a lot of different reasons, usually related, at least in part, to furthering their professional career. There are three paths. The road most traveled is the, "Hey, there was an auto accident on I-97 last night." There are about 1000 of these sites written by or for personal injury lawyers who have nothing to add to the conversation but are trying to attract clients directly. These blogs come and go and they are both painful to read and, I'm sure, to write. If you are trying to attract personal injury clients like this, you are almost certainly going to fail unless you have been doing it for years (Google likes websites that have been around for a while).

You know you are reading one of these blogs because when you are finished, you have learned absolutely nothing except that the lawyer wants personal injury clients. These are almost exclusively personal injury lawyers. The patent lawyer approach of "Hey, Microsoft got a patent yesterday" is clearly not going to work. The personal injury lawyers' "there was an accident last night" pitch will also fail, but it is just not as obvious to the blogger.

The second path is the purist. There is no hint of marketing or sensitivity to Google search terms - just pure facts, analysis and opinion. Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann's Drug and Device Law Blog is an excellent example, as is Eric Turkewitz's New York Injury Law Blog. These bloggers certainly enhance their professional reputations with their blog. This is a very effective route, but there is one problem with this path: you actually have to have something to say that would be of interest to someone else.

The third avenue is the hybrid where you write to be educational, informative and interesting, but you are not above an occasional pitch to consumers, and if the possibility avails itself, you use a Google friend keyword you would not use if Google was not keeping score of these things.

Continue reading "Personal Injury Lawyer Blogs: Thoughts on Blogging" »

I'm pleased to report that Laura Zois and John Bratt obtained this morning a $1,063,000 verdict in a truck accident case in Baltimore City after a four day trial. John blogs about the trial here.

• Wisconsin Supreme Court begins to lean to the right, notwithstanding last week’s informed consent holding.
• $11 million malpractice settlement in Chicago (Dallas Fort Worth Injury Lawyer).
• Advice on coordinating PIP and workers’ compensation in third party car accident cases.
• The argument that early settlements in medical malpractice cases – even before a lawsuit is filed – would make more economic sense for malpractice insurance companies. Obviously, I like the idea but I wonder whether this study factored in the “deterrent effect.” One reason why every medical malpractice case is a war is to send a clear message to medical malpractice lawyers: every malpractice case you file is going to be a war that is going to cost you money. An annoying practice to be sure but is it a good business model? I have no idea.
• Eric Turkewitz on trying to solve the ambulance chaser problem in New York. I don’t think we have a lot of this in Maryland but we certainly do in the District of Columbia.
• Neurontin lawsuit ends bizarrely.
• Thoughts on handling personal injury claims against State Farm.
• Yaz/Yasmin Lawsuits are consolidated in an MDL.
• TortsProf (roundup of personal injury links).
• Risk of texting while driving from the Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog, Rob Sachs with Shrager, Spivey & Sachs, and the Reeves Law Group Blog. I really don’t think the risk is 23 times greater. That is an insane number. But the larger point should not be obscured: Crowley and Gates go much better together than texting and driving.
• Robert Kreisman writes in his Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Blog advice for all of us on another means to decrease medical malpractice lawsuits: the insistence on clear communication with your doctor. I think bad automobile drivers get in more accidents that are not their fault than good drivers; good drivers see other drivers' negligence but are paying careful enough attention to avoid the accident. The same is true for medical malpractice: bad patients are more at risk for malpractice than good patients.
• Palm Beach focuses on the problem of teen driving. The LaBovick Injury Law Blog underscores the tragic facts: there is a 40% higher risk of fatalities for drivers age 16-19. What exactly do we do about this? Set the driving age at 20? This seems impractical, to be sure. But so is losing 5,000 teenagers a year to fatal car accidents. I wish I had the answer.
• O.J. Simpson wants to be released pending his appeal because he poses no flight risk. The problem is that it is safe to assume that every justice on the Nevada Supreme Court watched the Bronco chase live, even with a riveting Knicks-Pacers game on as competition. So I suggest betting against a release in your office pool.
• Overlawyered (August 3rd roundup).
• New York Personal Injury Law Blog (roundup of personal injury links).
• Scott Greenfield’s Blawg Review.

John Bratt on the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog finds a way to make the lawsuit against Ben Roethlisberger of interest to personal injury lawyers.

I offer my own thoughts from a more philosophical and less substantive perspective here.

John Bratt on the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog finds a way to make the lawsuit against Ben Roethlisberger of interest to personal injury lawyers.

I offer my own thoughts from a more philosophical and less substantive perspective here.

The Maryland Court of Appeals has two big cases in 2009 – one a lead paint case, the other a medical malpractice claim - in which plaintiffs seek a path around Maryland’s non-economic damages cap after big jury verdicts. Plaintiffs lost Round 1 today.

In Green v. NBS, Plaintiffs’ lead paint lawyers argued that the statutory cap on non-economic damages in Maryland does not apply to personal injury claims authorized by the Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, and creatively, Plaintiffs claimed that a lawsuit brought under the CPA is not a “personal injury action” and the Maryland legislature did not want a cap on deceptive practiced covered by the CPA.

The Maryland high court, however, found that Plaintiffs’ CPA claim is a personal injury action, and that CJ § 11-108 is applicable to a proceeding in which a consumer asserts a claim for money damages to compensate for injuries sustained as a result of a Consumer Protection Act violation. The court’s reasoning is, essentially, that if it looks like a personal injury claim and talks like a personal injury claim, then it is a personal injury claim.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers made two other arguments. The first was DOA: the cap violates the Maryland constitution. Again, Plaintiffs’ lawyers tried to put a CPA spin on the old argument, arguing that a cap on a CPA claim violates the prohibition against the enactment of “special laws” in the Maryland Constitution. But the argument went nowhere with the court.

Continue reading "Maryland’s Cap on Damages in Lead Paint Cases" »

The personal injury case with the "Motion for Counsel to Get New Shoes" that I blogged about Friday ended in a mistrial, setting aside what apparently would been a $2.2 million plaintiff's verdict. So, essentially, filing this silly motion may have cost his injured client $2.2 million.

The writer who wrote the original column provides a well written background of his dealing with the lawyers in the case before publishing the story. I don't know whether this column is accurate. Either way, it does not convey a very good image of personal injury lawyers.

• Palm Beach Post (column explaining original column)
• Original Palm Beach Post (original Palm Beach Post article)
• Above the Law (which is where I found the story)
  

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals found Monday that the trial court erred in excluding the estate of a five year old drowning victim from presenting a survival action for conscious pain and suffering of the child while drowning. You can find the opinion here. I first blogged about this case two years ago after an Anne Arundel County jury awarded $4 million in a wrongful death action brought by his parents. The survival claim was dismissed by the trial court for lack of evidence that the boy suffered before he died.

The lawyers in the case on both sides did exactly what lawyers should do: make the best arguments for their clients. I would do the same. But it is haunting trying to explain this to your client in a wrongful death/survival action case. “No one knows for sure whether your child (or parent or sibling) suffered awfully before he/she died. But the likelihood is high because (fill in your own awful means of death). So we are going to argue that he/she endured unbelievable suffering that neither of us can ever imagine.” You don’t say it quite like that. But it is truly awful and it makes you want to get another job.

After I frame the issue, the client almost invariably wants to win the argument. This is completely understandable. But the victim's family finds themselves in the position of rooting that someone who has never met the person they love finds there was horrible suffering before the person's death. But they hope and pray that it is not really true. It is a grotesque paradox.

Defense lawyers have it worse on some level. I don’t know who the lawyer was in this case but what are the chances that lawyer went home to their spouse at the end of the day proud of their victory in the trial court? “Honey, I won this argument today where I argued this little boy drowned and didn’t suffer because there is no proof the child suffered because he died – I’m so proud of my victory.” Do you think that lawyer does not know that child suffered? Don’t you have to sadly admit this as you explain the story of your "victory"? Again, I’d make the argument if I was the defense lawyer. Then I would go home and shower.

Continue reading "New Maryland Appellate Opinion on Survival Actions" »

If you have any suggestions for links, send me an email, I'm all ears. Maryland specific links are at the bottom:

• The New York Times reports that General Motors will continue to have responsibility for products liability lawsuits filed against it after bankruptcy. Lawsuits filed against General Motors before the bankruptcy will be dealt with in bankruptcy court. In other words, clients whose product liability lawyers that had their act together and filed suit are going to have a slim chance of being paid. Slackers (or products’ liability lawyers who saw this coming) who delayed moving forward in filing their lawsuits will be rewarded. It is what it is and product liability lawyers with lawsuits to be filed have to be pleased that their claims will not be terminated by the bankruptcy proceedings. But still.
• The Washington City Paper (via Overlawyered) has this great quote for a guy starting a website for lawyers seeking clients for the D.C. metro train crash: "What else can you do, a young guy like me? I don't want to do porn [websites]." Dare I suggest this is a false choice? There has to be a third option after porn and train wreck chasing, right?
• This gets a nod just for the title: “Michael Jackson: The Mother of All Malpractice Suits.” I always thought that had Tiger Woods’ surgeon committed malpractice on Tiger Woods during his Lasix surgery, that would have been the mother of all malpractice suits. It would have been a billion dollar medical malpractice claim. Speaking of Michael Jackson, the National Law Journal says that Jackson’s history of lawsuits will not end after his death. Which is pretty much exactly what you would expect.
• Lawyer’s PowerPoint presentation that his speeding ticket should be excused because he could not feel the speed in his BMW fails, defying the Vegas odds.
• Joe Jureviciusiles files a medical malpractice lawsuit against the Cleveland Browns team doctors (and the team). Given the number of infections the Cleveland Browns have had, it is hard to be surprised that someone would bring a lawsuit, particularly a recently cut player.
• Military medical malpractice lawsuits could be on the horizon. Why shouldn't the military compensate soldier victims?
• Roche withdraws Accutane. The Drug and Medical Device Blog says that there is no “scientific evidence” that Accutane causes IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) yet juries keep awarding millions of dollars. How does one logically explain this theory? American juries just keep getting fooled over and over again? Is this just a crazy mathematical fluke or are people just pretty stupid? Do we need smart people to decide complex cases? How about voting for president? That seems like a complex issue too, right? If Sarah Palin wasn’t so reflexively choosing business interests at every turn, I know she would have my back on this one.
• Is being the first to file a lawsuit the smartest approach? John Bratt offers his thoughts.
• The Maryland Court of Special Appeals rules in an uninsured motorist pedestrian accident case.
• Lord & Whip lawsuit to proceed. What a messy breakup.

The Wall Street Journal reports that AIG is playing hardball with Flight 1549 claims from passengers that suffered injury or lost property (cell phone, i-Pods, etc.) when their plane landed in the Hudson River. Their thinking? An AIG spokesman told the Wall Street Journal that bad publicity is better than no publicity, which explains AIG's thinking with those bonuses. Okay, I just made that last part up.

Given the reputation of AIG these days, these might have been smart claims to pay. But AIG really has no obligation to pay them because there is no evidence that I've heard that its insured, US Airways, was responsible for the accident. The geese are not responsible.

US Airways did a good thing paying each victim $5,000 after the accident to cover their immediate needs. That is just smart public relations. AIG would be wise to look at the big picture as US Airways did. But they are not obligated to do so. And my plea to every lawyer in the United States: please don't file a lawsuit in these cases to get your name in the paper.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued a troubling opinion last week in Stanley v. Walker, ruling that the discounted price actually paid for medical care by insurance is admissible as evidence.

Ah, what about the collateral source rule? Well, the Indiana Supreme Court thinks they have us covered. The court says this evidence can only be introduced to the extent that discounted amounts can be introduced without referencing insurance. I dissent.

This is an appeal of an accident case of what was probably a decent verdict: $70,000 on $11,570 in medical bills (does not appear to be a serious injury case, but the opinion is not clear). His medical bills actually received by the health care providers were adjusted by write-offs negotiated by his insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, to $6,820.

Defendant’s lawyer agreed that he could not ask questions about Plaintiff’s collateral source rule, which, as I understand it, is similar to Maryland’s rule. But the defense lawyer did argue that neither the Plaintiff nor his insurance company was responsible to pay the written-off sum, and accordingly, the write-offs did not constitute an insurance benefit under Indiana's collateral source statute.

From this creative argument – which I applaud on either side of the v - Defendant’s lawyer contended that he could introduce evidence of reductions as indicia of the actual expenses. Plaintiff’s lawyer’s response – that carried the day below in the trial court and to the Indiana Court of Appeals – was that because collateral source payments were insurance benefits that Plaintiff paid for, they are not admissible. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant should not be the beneficiary of Plaintiff’s bargaining power through the insurance companies because – again this bears repeating – he was the one who paid the insurance premiums for the last 50 years, not the Defendant (okay, I’m making up the 50 year thing – you get the point).

The Indiana Court of Appeals cited Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff’s Auto Risk Association, 802 So. 2d 691 (La. App. 2001) to underscore Plaintiff’s argument:

This rationale can best be understood by analyzing the write-offs in two situations: one in which a tortfeasor injures an uninsured victim and the other in which the same tortfeasor, in the same manner and to the same extent, injures an insured victim. Unless the write-offs are considered collateral sources, the tortfeasor would be relieved of his liability to the insured victim to the extent of the amount of the write-offs. The argument that there is no underlying obligation for plaintiff to pay the amount of the write-offs and, therefore, the plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from a non-existent debt, fa[i]ls because the effect of this reasoning results in a diminution of the tortfeasor's liability vis-à-vis an insured victim when compared with the same tortfeasor's liability vis-à-vis an uninsured victim.

Another Louisiana case, Bozeman v. Louisiana, 879 So.2d 692 (La. 2004) tightens this analysis further:

If we were to permit a tortfeasor to mitigate damages with payments from plaintiff's insurance, [the] plaintiff would be in a position inferior to that of having bought no insurance, because his payment of premiums would have earned no benefit. [The defendant] should not be able to avoid payment of full compensation for the injury inflicted merely because the victim has had the foresight to provide himself with insurance.

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, relying on the fact that under the current system we have in this country, a doctor’s medical bills do not equate to cost. But this makes every medical bill unreasonable on some level. Should the law be that you cannot introduce medical bills because the whole system is screwed up? I just don’t think it makes any sense.

Continue reading "Collateral Source Rule Under Attack in Indiana" »

The Maryland Lawyer Blog yesterday wrote about the hubbub in the legal blogosphere when an associate at Quinn Emanuel - a large law firm that represents the Washington Redskins in their dispute with American Indian groups - engaged in an email exchange with a partner after another partner wrote one of the big firm standard "We Are the Masters of the Universe" email after a favorable ruling.

Commenters to the blog post have been dying to name the name of the associate and his name kept appearing in the comments section. An Above the Law editor wrote a piece explaining their policy that associates are entitled to privacy. I agree. But apparently Above the Law believes that partners are public figures and should be named. I disagree with that.

The rule at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog (and related blogs) is pretty simple: don't name names unless (1) the person has specifically put themselves out there so deliberately as to warrant mentioning or, (2) they are being recognized in a positive or neutral way related to their profession in a way that would not be embarassing. This includes individual plaintiffs and defendants who are not putting themselves in the public eye - in my opinion - by either enforcing or defending their rights.

Esquire (via Overlawyered) has videos of the five worst lawyer ads. It is worth taking the time to watch these. If you do nothing else today, click on the last one, the California Switchblade. Transcendent unintentional comedy. If you are having fun, go to YouTube. There are, by my math, about a zillion more.

Last month, I expressed shock over a van that advertised for a personal injury lawyer that could generously be described as tacky. I've grown up a great deal in the last month. When I read the story of the lawyer living in that personal injury lawyer advertising van and parking it in the hospital parking lot, I'm not going to blink.

The New York Appellate Division affirmed, in a 4-1 opinion, a trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of a golfer who struck his friend in the eye with a golf ball. Both the plaintiff and defendant were medical doctors and friends… before the accident.

In his lawsuit and at deposition, the Plaintiff alleged that he had located his ball and turned around to see where the others in the threesome had hit their balls when he was struck by the defendant's misdirected ball. The plaintiff estimated that he was approximately 15 to 20 feet in front of the defendant when the errant ball was hit. He admitted that it was customary for members of the same golfing party to stand behind the person hitting the ball. The defendant admitted that he did not know where the other golfers were when he hit the ball. The defendant claimed he shouted a warning, but no one heard the warning. (For purpose of summary judgment assuming the facts most favorable to the Defendant, the assumption is there was no "fore" warning.)

Continue reading "Bad Golf Shot Lawsuit Ends with Summary Judgment" »

The New York Daily News reports that the family of a high school student in New York, who was killed in a stolen vehicle hit-and-run drunken driving accident, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver of the car, the owner, and the family that hosted an underage drinking party. It is a no-brainer case against the adult hit and run drunk driver who also will certainly face criminal liability. The merits of the case against both the owner of the vehicle and the family that hosted an underage drinking party where they gave the victim – not the driver – alcohol, is more problematic, even from a personal injury lawyer with a admittedly pro-plaintiff world view.

About half of the states in this country have enacted Dram Shop statutes which permitted the imposition of civil liability on suppliers of intoxicating beverages in certain circumstances. Only a few states take the position that there was no civil liability for serving alcohol. But Maryland is one of those few states. Moreover, Maryland courts will not distinguish a case where the alcohol was served to minors in the home with the parents’ consent (Maryland Court of Special Appeals opinion in Hebb v. Walker, 73 Md. App. 655 (1988)).

This is another bad and outdated Maryland law. But this New York case is trickier than “the adults give kids alcohol, and then the kids go out and hurt someone in an accident" scenario. Both the pedestrian victim and the driver were drunk. The wrongful death lawsuit names the parents who allowed the pedestrian/victim to drink alcohol at a party.

Honestly, and the New York Daily News has a picture of this handsome boy and his parents that is downright heartbreaking, I have a hard time placing civil liability on the parents that allowed him to drink alcohol in their home. There are cases where someone is morally responsible – which I think is hard to deny in this case - but should not be civilly responsible. I think this is one of them. A sixteen year-old boy is blameless in the big picture in this case in every way that matters. But his own behavior should – I think at least – negate the liability of the parents that allowed him the have alcohol. I realize this opinion is not out of the plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer manifesto. But I didn’t check my own views at the door when I became a plaintiffs’ lawyer.

Continue reading "The Difference Between Moral and Civil Responsibility" »