quote:

---

I don't need to know the facts to know control is an issue for appeal. That's obvious!

---

The elements of control are pretty straight forward, but the evidence and testimony that is utilized to establish/defeat those elements is where the appellate issue gets difficult. If the testimony/evidence was given proper weight, the issue may be scuttled by an appellate court (i.e. (and very overly simplified) co-worker testifies that decedent and he were instructed by M-V regarding manner and process of work to be completed v. M-V foreman or project manager testifying that subs had full discretion). Appellate courts usually err on the side of preserving judgments (although that is not always the case).

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How much to attorneys?

---

Probably 70% or more.

---

It's not 70%. Most likely 40% of the mother's recovery and 1/3 of the children's recovery.

---

And Uncle Sam?

The greatest feat lawyers have ever done to date is convince the general public that it is impossible to argue in a court of law without them.

So a jury of Garcia's peers decided his value to society would have been worth over $50M.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So what should the attorneys get? $0?

---

25% at best.
They should be paid for their services, absolutely. But they are not the ones that are suffering/seeking justice.

---

They're taking all the risk and paying all the expenses to take that case to court. Without them doing that, the family wouldn't be able to even take their case to court. If they lose, they get nothing and are out everything they've spent, which is usually very substantial (expert fees, etc.). It easily costs 6 figures to take that case to trial, not including the time spent. That's expenses out of pocket that the lawyer pays.

---

So, the attorneys pay fees out of pocket which could be in the 6 figures so they deserve 25-40% of 53 Mil? Anyone who needs an attorney to settle an injury or casualty claim is a fool. You are better off settling with the Insurance company without an attorney and paying the inflated fees his/her "experts" charge and the contingency to the shark. You will usually come out better off.

---

It is best not to speak when you have absolutely no knowledge on the subject you are talking about.

**** the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI had the right idea.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How much to attorneys?

---

Probably 70% or more.

---

It's not 70%. Most likely 40% of the mother's recovery and 1/3 of the children's recovery.

---

And Uncle Sam?

---

Depends on what kind of damages were awarded.

I watched how to make a murderer on Netflix.. They should of hired me as their lawyer for half the price!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So what should the attorneys get? $0?

---

25% at best.
They should be paid for their services, absolutely. But they are not the ones that are suffering/seeking justice.

---

They're taking all the risk and paying all the expenses to take that case to court. Without them doing that, the family wouldn't be able to even take their case to court. If they lose, they get nothing and are out everything they've spent, which is usually very substantial (expert fees, etc.). It easily costs 6 figures to take that case to trial, not including the time spent. That's expenses out of pocket that the lawyer pays.

---

So, the attorneys pay fees out of pocket which could be in the 6 figures so they deserve 25-40% of 53 Mil? Anyone who needs an attorney to settle an injury or casualty claim is a fool. You are better off settling with the Insurance company without an attorney and paying the inflated fees his/her "experts" charge and the contingency to the shark. You will usually come out better off.

---

Insurance company claims people are such wonderful and fair people they will certainly not try to screw over a person without a lawyer.


In my personal experience, can't think of a single instance where a pro se plaintiff got as much as they could have gotten if they had chosen a good lawyer.

Now, I will be the first to admit there are lots and lots of times people don't need a lawyer. an accident involving a death at a construction site is not one of those.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So what should the attorneys get? $0?

---

25% at best.
They should be paid for their services, absolutely. But they are not the ones that are suffering/seeking justice.

---

They're taking all the risk and paying all the expenses to take that case to court. Without them doing that, the family wouldn't be able to even take their case to court. If they lose, they get nothing and are out everything they've spent, which is usually very substantial (expert fees, etc.). It easily costs 6 figures to take that case to trial, not including the time spent. That's expenses out of pocket that the lawyer pays.

---

So, the attorneys pay fees out of pocket which could be in the 6 figures so they deserve 25-40% of 53 Mil? Anyone who needs an attorney to settle an injury or casualty claim is a fool. You are better off settling with the Insurance company without an attorney and paying the inflated fees his/her "experts" charge and the contingency to the shark. You will usually come out better off.

---

It is best not to speak when you have absolutely no knowledge on the subject you are talking about.

---

You know nothing about me or my experience. Too bad you don't listen to your own advice.

quote:

---

It's remarkable how lowly people think of attorneys. Truly saddening. People completely overlook the important services lawyers provide. Until they actually need those services. Lots of good Aggie attorneys out there. Over-generalizing an entire profession is simply a sign of ignorance.

---

Count me in as one

No amount of $$$$ will bring this person back to his family. So sad.

I could never be a lawyer or a judge. Common sense would keep getting in my way.

There's nothing unusual at all about not submitting past damages when aiming for high future damages. It's done all the time.

quote:

---

There's nothing unusual at all about not submitting past damages when aiming for high future damages. It's done all the time.

---

The past damage questions were submitted and removed from the charge at the pretrial conference. If there are expected future consequentials, there will certainly be past ones as well. Not being dense but (assuming you're a lawyer and not just making a statement on pure speculation and passing it off as knowledge) in what type of scenario would you have the jury charge not include a separate past consequentials question where there is a future one?

quote:

---

I could never be a lawyer or a judge. Common sense would keep getting in my way.

---

And the vodka bottle

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's remarkable how lowly people think of attorneys. Truly saddening. People completely overlook the important services lawyers provide. Until they actually need those services. Lots of good Aggie attorneys out there. Over-generalizing an entire profession is simply a sign of ignorance.

---

Count me in as one

---

As an ignorant person? Yeah we already knew that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The greatest feat lawyers have ever done to date is convince the general public that it is impossible to argue in a court of law without them.

---

Yes, our system would be so much better if every courtroom in American was like a mash up of Muary and Judge Judy. If you think it would be anything a step above that you're delusional. Think I'm wrong, go sit for a few hours down at your local JP court and listen to people fighting over picking up tree branches from a felled tree. Better yet, go attend a few child custody hearings.

The law is complex and nuanced both to ensure relative consistency and fairness. Without a language of laws and people educated in their interpretation and application, there would be no rule of law and the system would give way to corruption and inequality.

The biggest issue I have with your statement is the irony. You don't even have a clue how wrong you are, yet you think you're not. That's pretty much every pro se litigant I've ever encountered.

---

LOTS of t&p...

quote:

---

If there are expected future consequentials, there will certainly be past ones as well.

---

But that does not mean there is a requirement a plaintiff must ask for them.

I'm trying to think of a scenario in which it would be error to help a defendant when damages are not submitted to the jury

When future damages make up most of your damage model. Not applicable here but illustrative: if I there 35,000 in past medical and a 3,500,000 life care plan only a defense lawyer would want to submit the past medical.

Educate me. What's "past" and "future" apply to here?

To truly make injured parties whole, the law permits the recovery of past and future damages. For example, if I'm permanently injured and can no longer work, I will have lost wages/earning capacity from the date of my injury to the day the jury is deciding my case. These are past damages. I'll also have lost wages/earning capacity from the day the jury gets my case to the end of my work life expectancy. These are the future damages.

The Ghost of Christmas Present gets short shrift under the law.

You often don't submit past pecuniary damages in a civil trial when they are small because someone died. I have had clients dead on scene where the only past pecuniary losses are the costs of burial. When you are asking for millions of dollars, you don't want that on the charge.

Pictures of good ol' honest people just trying to do "what's right"

Regarding lawyers, I generally like to keep them out of my business. However, I've learned from personal experience that if someone is out to make you pay for something and they lawyer up then it's in your best interest to do the same.

Regarding this case, I'll be watching to see how the appeals court treats it. As someone in the construction industry, it's scary to think that a family could be awarded over $50M for an accident like this. Even if there was gross negligence on the GC's part. I'm not saying it is or isn't deserved. I'm just saying it's scary. Manhattan and Vaughn are huge companies with deep pockets, but for a smaller firm like the one I work for that's half a year's total revenue and probably 8-9 years of profit. The impact of a hit like that would put many companies under, thereby affecting the livelihood of many, many others that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

Manhattan and Vaughn are huge companies with deep pockets, but for a smaller firm like the one I work for that's half a year's total revenue and probably 8-9 years of profit.

---

And juries can certainly take the size and financials of the company into account.

For example: The McDonalds hot coffee lady was awarded $2.9 MM, which was two days' worth of McDonalds coffee sales. Completely arbitrary in that instance, but subject to review nonetheless.

thats not accurate.

the size and wealth of a company woudl only be relevant and somethign considered by the jury if exemplary or punitive damages are awarded.

that did not happen in this case.

quote:

---

thats not accurate.

the size and wealth of a company woudl only be relevant and somethign considered by the jury if exemplary or punitive damages are awarded.

that did not happen in this case.

---

That's right. But sometimes juries can figure out on their own that a company is large and they adjust their damages accordingly.

quote:

---

In my personal experience, can't think of a single instance where a pro se plaintiff got as much as they could have gotten if they had chosen a good lawyer.

---

Just for clarification, I think there are many individuals that could get more pre-suit without a lawyer when compared to after a settlement and the attorney gets his cut.

However, once a suit is filed, it is more than likely the attorney will get you more even after he gets his cut.

I don't disagree with that for car wrecks with low economic damages & low policy limits, or other similar types of cases

quote:

---

thats not accurate.

the size and wealth of a company woudl only be relevant and somethign considered by the jury if exemplary or punitive damages are awarded.

that did not happen in this case.

---

Didn't read the article-- I guess I assumed an award of $53 MM had to include some sort of punitive das