The Trial

The Trial

I was selected last Monday to serve on a civil trial.

http://joeh-crankyoldman.blogspot.com/2017/01/juror-3.html 

Tuesday morning the lawyers presented the case with their opening statements.  

A thirty-year-old man (Mr. X), a husband and father of a young son was driving to work, a job in general construction.  He was at a stop light and a woman (Miss Y) was momentarily distracted and rammed him from behind. 

The car was totaled, though from pictures totaled probably meant it could be repaired but it was an old vehicle and not worth the cost of repair.  The driver was taken to the hospital complaining of headaches and dizziness.  He was possibly unconscious for a period of time after the collision.

Miss Y admitted guilt, the question was in the amount of money to cover medical damage and also pain and suffering.  When I hear “pain and suffering” I often think “pay and bluffering.”  

The accident did not seem that bad, and the claim so severe I was skeptical. 

Mr. X claimed he had headaches, could not concentrate, was often dizzy and had no stamina.  He also claimed depression as a result of the accident.  His lawyer would call several doctors and experts to specify his ailments, verify his disability and suggest a fair settlement.

The defense did not dispute liability for damages, they disputed the extent of Mr. X’s disability.  They would call doctors to dispute findings of plaintiff’s doctors.  They also would show that Mr. X had blood clots in his leg for years before the accident, was on anti-coagulant drugs and had a non-accident related tumor (fancy medical name, not cancer, not growing) in his head that was only discovered while he was in the hospital.

At stake was lots of money.   As a jury, we would have to decide how much money.  If the judgment was greater than Miss Y’s insurance coverage she could lose everything and be bankrupt.   If Mr. X suffered as a result of the accident, he should be compensated, but how much?  Was his suffering, if real, due to a preexisting condition?

In the morning, we heard testimony from Mr. X’s wife.  I was leaning toward the injury being mostly fake. 

The wife was engaging, her testimony unrehearsed, she was genuine.

Her husband could now only work several hours a day three to four days a week.  He used to work 40 hours a week both on salary and on his own contracting business.  He was (demonstrated) a talented amateur artist who had not painted since the accident (2011.)

Mrs. X worked housekeeping.  She went from a few clients before her husband accident to now working 6 days a week eight hours a day for many clients in order to make ends meet.  This couple seemed to have a strong work ethic.  

I was now leaning towards the disability being genuine.

The problem as I saw it? Was the disability the result of the accident, or did his medication and previous condition make him a walking time bomb with the first bump or slip causing brain trauma.  The man was disabled, but should someone have to pay, and for all we knew be bankrupt, because they happened to be the catalyst of the inevitable?

One life was diluted by brain trauma, would another life be ruined by possible bankruptcy?  All due to what was essentially little more than a fender bender.

On one hand I was anxious to discuss the case with my juror peers, as they seemed such an interesting, intelligent, eclectic group; not like previous jury’s I have served on.  On the other hand, this was going to be a very difficult decision that would have tremendous effect on possibly two basically innocent families.

We were not called back from our lunch break at the appointed time.  Was there a settlement?  I hoped so.  Not just to get out of what could be a five-day trial, but also because I sensed a very difficult decision.

Long story short, they settled.  I’m assuming insurance covered damages and Mr. X was justly compensated.  A satisfactory ending to a difficult situation. 

A decision I was not looking forward to deliberating was averted.

Was my time and the time of the court and other jurors a waste?  I don't think so.  I think it sometimes takes going to court, and having a jury trial process to force both parties hand and start talking to reach a reach a fair settlement. 

It is an interesting process from selection to trial.  It is an inconvenience to serve, but it is also an honor.  It is a system which sets us apart from many other countries.  An imperfect system to be sure, but in lieu of an all-knowing-benevolent ruler, it is a damn good system.