Wobble
Charter Member
There is plenty of extra toe on Clay's Cig:cheers2:
Headlines
Jury awards injured Austin man $3.8 Million
- Thread starter clayinaustin
- Start date
There is plenty of extra toe on Clay's Cig:cheers2:
clayinaustin
Charter Member
Ha Ha! Even if I won, a pinky toe of only worth $19.95
Hell yeah! :cheers2:
Smarty
New member
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/jurors-find-boat-manufacturer-partly-liable-527456.html
The article above provides a little more detail about the award.
Brunswick was found 66% liable, the plaintiff was 17% liable, and the driver of the boat was found 17% liable. This is a negligence and product liabiltity case, it should only been a negliegence claim, but the lawyer & plaintiff had this case tried three times (two times were hung jury), persistence paid off.
Texas follows a system using the modified comparative negligence – 51% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. However, if a plaintiff’s fault reaches 51%, he or she recovers nothing. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible for more than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. For example, if Debbie sued Dave for damages she suffered in a car accident involving their vehicles, and Debbie was 51% at fault, Debbie would not recover anything from Dave. If, however, Debbie was 40% at fault, she could recover damages, but the damage award would be reduced by her portion of the fault in causing the injury. Therefore, a finding that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages would result in Debbie receiving an award reduced by 40%, or a final award of $6,000. (from a TX internet site, I do not practice law in Texas).
The article above provides a little more detail about the award.
Brunswick was found 66% liable, the plaintiff was 17% liable, and the driver of the boat was found 17% liable. This is a negligence and product liabiltity case, it should only been a negliegence claim, but the lawyer & plaintiff had this case tried three times (two times were hung jury), persistence paid off.
Texas follows a system using the modified comparative negligence – 51% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. However, if a plaintiff’s fault reaches 51%, he or she recovers nothing. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible for more than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. For example, if Debbie sued Dave for damages she suffered in a car accident involving their vehicles, and Debbie was 51% at fault, Debbie would not recover anything from Dave. If, however, Debbie was 40% at fault, she could recover damages, but the damage award would be reduced by her portion of the fault in causing the injury. Therefore, a finding that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages would result in Debbie receiving an award reduced by 40%, or a final award of $6,000. (from a TX internet site, I do not practice law in Texas).
Last edited:
mustang
New member
Next time you're stuck at the DMV take a look around....that's a jury of your peers! SCARY STUFF!:banghead:
03darkshadow
New member
i lose more and more faith in my fellow man every day. 
Wrinkleface
Founding Member
i lose more and more faith in my fellow man every day.
:iagree::iagree: it's always somebody elses fault!!!
cosmic12
Founding Member
So the theary here is sue the ones with the most money:huh:
Doe"s that work for divorce? I put her through 6 yrs of school and now she is making big bucks way more than me, so this theary should work in my favor ...correct?
:toetap05:
Seriously though this whole thing is bad bad for everyone in the long run and I hope brunswick fights the good fight on it.:cuss::smash:
Doe"s that work for divorce? I put her through 6 yrs of school and now she is making big bucks way more than me, so this theary should work in my favor ...correct?
:toetap05:Seriously though this whole thing is bad bad for everyone in the long run and I hope brunswick fights the good fight on it.:cuss::smash:
THEJOKER
New member
Camel toe!
My 16 year old son decided he was Mario Andretti back in February and lost control of his car at high speed and totalled it. The car was a 2002 Toyota Avalon (safe car, by the way). I had more than one person after the accident ask me if we were going to claim the throttle stuck on the car so as to shift the blame from a stupid 16 year old to Toyota. All I could do is shake my head at these people and walk away.
Magic Medicine
New member
Unbelievable, whats next! My 4 year old knows better than this!!!!!!
Similar threads
