March 25, 2004

Santa Monica Bans Beach Smoking

No more smoking at the closest beach to my house (unless you have a doctor's note, i would guess).

Even as a smoker, i still have to ask: Who wants to smoke at the beach anyway? It's hard to light up and even a small breeze will make the cig burn so fast it's gone before you know it. i tend to smoke less when i'm out in the hot sun anyways. i also feel guilty just sticking the butt in the sand like so many people do.

i got the link from L.A. Observed. There's a couple of comments from people calling this new law "fascist." Then there's an interesting rebuttal chiding those commenters for not understanding the import of the word "fascist." Interesting, if somewhat vitriolic.

i generally don't get too worked up over anti-smoking laws. Some people claim that if we smokers want to do something harmful, we should be able to do it. They also claim that second hand smoke is harmless. But i know i shouldn't be smoking and if a law makes it inconvenient for me to continue a dangerous habit, i think that's a good thing. And as for second hand smoke being harmless, that's an argument that seems to go against common sense. Why not err on the side of safety?

Still, banning smoking on the beach seems a bit much. The only logical justifications would seem to be 1) anti-litter, 2) encouraging quitting and 3) minimizing children's exposure to viewing people with cigarettes. Those are thin justifications, but hey, like i said, it's a bad habit so i'm not gonna get too upset about it.

Posted by: annika at 10:00 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

March 21, 2004

Results Of LindaÂ’s Trial

Last week i wrote about the trial i was helping my friend Linda with. She represented the defendant and made her closing argument on Friday. The jury came back after about an hour and fifteen minutes.

The jury found our client negligent, but only awarded $1800 to the injured plaintiff, the amount of her medical bills. The jury unanimously awarded nothing to the wife for pain and suffering and nothing to the husband for loss of consortium.

The juryÂ’s verdict was substantially below LindaÂ’s last offer before trial. i could tell by the look on the plaintiffsÂ’ faces as they walked out of the courtroom on Friday that they regretted not taking the pre-trial offer.

We suspect that the jury did not like the way the plaintiffs were making a mountain out of a molehill, especially in regard to the loss of consortium claim. Linda tells me that it's very hard for plaintiff attorneys to get good verdicts on cases that only involve minor muscle strains. The more money the plaintiffs ask for, the less the jury seems to like them, she says.

i was impressed with LindaÂ’s skill as a cross-examiner and her eloquent closing argument. This was only her third trial, but iÂ’d never have known it by watching her. Of course itÂ’s the first real trial iÂ’ve ever seen, but i thought the plaintiffsÂ’ attorney was far less prepared than Linda.

i told Linda how great i thought she had been, but she was characteristically humble. “The facts won this case, not me,” she said.

“But you were so much better than the other lawyer,” i said. “You laid some traps for him that he had no idea how to get out of.” That was true, Linda got the plaintiff’s doctor to admit to a couple of innocuous facts during cross-examination and then during closing she sprung the trap by using those facts in a way that the other attorney had not anticipated. He didn’t see her argument coming and so he had no answer to it in his rebuttal. It was beautiful.

Linda has less of an ego than any lawyer iÂ’ve ever met. She simply refused to take credit for her trial victory. She thanked me profusely for my help, even though the judge denied both of the motions in limine that i wrote.

Friday, after work, Linda and i met up with our other team members, Grace, Paul, Patricia and Kathy for a round of Guinnesses. Finally, we got Linda to admit that she was good.

“Well, if there’s one thing I did do well,” she said, “it’s that i didn’t let [the plaintiffs’ attorney] get away with any mistakes.”

i agreed. She really exploited every weakness in the plaintiffsÂ’ case, including some weaknesses that i didnÂ’t see at first. Linda had this way of taking the arguments that the other guy thought were very clever and turning them around to use against him. i donÂ’t know how she did it, but if i ever make it through law school, i want her to teach me.

Posted by: annika at 07:41 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

March 17, 2004

Loss Of Consortium

i've been silent this week because i'm helping Linda out on a trial. This basically means that i either sit in the audience and run errands for her, or do research and write little motions back at the office. Which is why i'm here tonight and not out drinking on St. Patrick's Day.

The trial is quite interesting. Hard to predict how it's going so far. Both sides are scoring points and the jury is hard to read.

The plaintiffs' case includes a claim for loss of consortium. In case you don't know, this is a claim that can be made when one spouse is injured and the other non-injured spouse says they lost out on sex, affection, love, help around the house and other stuff like that. We represent the defendants.

What i want to know, just out of curiosity, is what you folks think about that type of a lawsuit. In Linda's case, one plaintiff received some minor injuries: sore back, sore neck, etc., which went away with some physical therapy after two or three months. During those two or three months, the husband complained that they weren't able to have sex their usual two times per week, and the wife couldn't help around the house as much. They're both in their late thirties and they've been married 14 years.

Assuming that the defendants were negligent for causing the wife's minor injuries, what would you do about the husband's claim if you were on the jury?

Posted by: annika at 07:36 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
69kb generated in CPU 0.0191, elapsed 0.0751 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0616 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.