Is This Right?
For those of you who don't know, today the Port Authority lost a civil case in which a jury found them responsible for negligence of their parking garage at the WTC. Here's the article in full detail: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_re_us/1993_wtc_bombing
The reason they were blamed was because in 1985 a report that was written by the Port Authority's security officials said that the garage was a likely attack site. This doesn't seem like a logical reason to find them guilty. Look at the year difference- 1985-1993 is 8 years. 8 years! This just doesn't seem right to me, because so much happens in a near decade.
posted by Anonymous at 11:24 PM
5 Comments:
In retrospect, every action could be stopped at some point in time. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Something happens when jury is seated in a civil action. It ony takes a majority of the jury for a conviction and the burden of proof shifts from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to, it is 'likely' that the defendant is guilty.
In England, they control this kind of thing by requiring the plantiff to pay all of the costs of the defendant, if they lose.
10/30/2005 5:09 PM
This does seem a bit fishy. Doubt it will hold up in appeals court.
10/30/2005 9:04 PM
warren:
true. but what i want to know is why a jury would even convict for something that took place 8 years after the fact. was the prosecution's case really that good?
11/01/2005 8:03 AM
Much of the time, in these type suits, It boils down to sympathy for the plaintiff(s). The same type thing happens in many malpractice suits.
The jury feels sorry for the "victim", they (the jury), knows that an insurance company will be the one picking up the bill and not the entity being sued or that the defendant is an "evil" corporation with deep pockets.
If you'll notice, these type of law suits are almost always decided by a jury. The trail lawyers know that large settlements can come from a jury and that legality goes by the way side as emotion takes front seat.
Trial lawyers are even taught about jury selection (shopping), in law school. They even ask prospective jurors questions that indicate a type of personality which would be prone to decide a particular outcome.
One question which has actually been asked is if the prospective juror listens to talk radio, Limbaugh in particular, if the person says yes, the plaintiffs lawyers will dismiss them on a challenge.
The reason for that is, if they listen, they are not prone to look at bigger businesses as "evil".
They lawyer for the plaintiff isn't a "prosecuter", they are trial lawyers as are the defendants lawyers. You have two sets of lawyers battling it out and the lawyers are always the winners!
In short, our judicial system has been perverted into a money machine for trial lawyers.
The US has more lawyers and more lawyers per capata than any other nation in the world. There is a reason that so many young people look toward law school as a ticket to the "big bucks".
'Hopefully', this verdict will be overturned upon appeal.
Are you aware that those "class action suits" bring the lawyers millions of dollars while at the same time only pay paltry sums to the "class".
I'm not saying all lawyers are thiefs, I've had a coulple of good ones in my family. I'm only denoting the trend.
11/02/2005 6:53 PM
i am very familiar with the jury selection. taking civil/criminal justice, we acted out voire dire hearings where a group of 4 attys per side would question the rest of us (we made personas). then a jury was selected and after we discussed who would win the case based on the jurors characteristics. (i was chosen, but kicked off for someone else.)
too much suing is taking place. did you hear of the case that was being brought up where a guy was suing burger king for making him fat? i almost crapped myself when i heard this. and the fact that this was even being heard in court made we want to gauge my eyes out.
grand theft auto 3 actually brought this up on a radio commercial where the guy said something along the lines of 'there's a quick way to solve your problems- sue'. it was a funny spoof on reality yet its true.
11/02/2005 9:42 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home