Rss Feed
Payday loans

March, 2012

  1. Gang member gets 35 years in beating death

    March 19, 2012 by Christy

    The presiding judge wondered what would drive a promising young man from a good neighborhood to join a violent street gang and participate in the beating death of an innocent person.

    “I don”t understand why

    term.

    Read the full article here.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.


  2. AN UNLIKEY VICTORY: CREATIVE USE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

    March 15, 2012 by Christy

    This matter involves a personal injury case in which the defendant was the third vehicle (Mercury Sable) in a three car ‘daisy-chain’ collision in heavy interstate traffic. Plaintiff was the passenger in the first car (Acura Integra). The defense successfully argued the defendant was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages, the middle vehicle (Chevrolet 1500 ½ ton pickup) was the proximate cause. Unfortunately for plaintiff, the pick up driver was not a party to the lawsuit.

    The case was tried before a jury in Chesapeake Circuit Court. Plaintiff’s case consisted of testimony from the driver of the pick up, the responding Virginia State Trooper, the driver (and husband) of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s primary care doctor, defendant and plaintiff. With $7,420 in medical specials, plaintiff asked the jury for $25,000 in damages.

    Neither negligence nor liability was conceded. Defendant testified she struck the rear of the pick up (inflicting very minor damage to only her vehicle) at 5 mph, not 50 mph as the middle driver testified. The pick up driver also testified the defendant had been tailgating him at highway speeds, driving erratically and

    sooner than 3-5 seconds and caused much more damage. In fact, most of the damage was to the front of his vehicle and he pushed the stopped plaintiff’s vehicle several feet forward and left, into the guard rail.

    After thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict.

    In a post-trial motion, plaintiff moved to have the verdict set aside, claiming the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law and evidence. This motion was denied. The judge ruled the verdict would stand based on different interpretations and inferences jurors may make with disputed facts.

    All case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. These prior case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.