Is the phrase, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” in the constitution? Popular belief is yes, but it is not actually in the constitution. Rather, this phrase comes from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. It is probably a concept that should have been incorporated into the constitution and certainly Lincoln included it to remind citizens that it is their country. I think politicians, and even some of us, forget that it is OUR government and the politicians are OUR employees; they are supposed to be working in OUR best interests.

Business interests are fond of complaining about the jury system and regularly claim that it is “broken”, it needs to be “fixed”. Perhaps the best word is, in fact, “fixed”; they would like to fix the civil justice system so that it can be better influenced in their direction. Should we hold it against them because they work to achieve an unfair playing field? We should not hate Big Corporations for this, but should we allow them to achieve it? Absolutely not!

I think the jury system our founding fathers borrowed from English common law works just fine in protecting the rights of individual citizens. Frankly, I want six of my fellow citizens sitting and listening to evidence in my case. I want six regular people considering what makes sense and what does not make sense. I do not want a special panel appointed to hear my case, as has been promoted by many business “political parrots”. I do not want the government inserting itself into the civil justice system anymore than they already do. I trust an impartial panel of my fellow citizens to fairly weigh the evidence and reach a decision that makes sense.

(more…)

There are few things we as people endure that are worse than losing a member of our family. The sense of loss, hurt, and anguish, however, is only magnified when a family member’s death was due to the negligence of someone else. What all-too-often causes even more heartache is the surviving family member’s discovery that the loss they have endured may not be recognized, i.e. compensable, under Florida law. Many people who have lost close family members as a result of the negligence of someone else have been surprised to learn that Florida law only allows for a financial recovery on behalf of certain surviving family members.

In Florida, the recovery of money damages by the surviving relatives for the death of a family member as the result of the negligence of another party is governed by Florida’s Wrongful Death Act (”Act”). According to the Act, the recovery of money damages is limited to the “survivors” of the deceased family member. The Act offers what would seem to be a fairly straightforward definition of who will constitute a deceased family member’s “survivors.” The Act defines survivors, in part, as “the decedent’s spouse, children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters.” Although the identification of a decedent’s survivors is ordinarily an easy enough task, it is critical for the lawyer representing the bereaved family to have a firm understanding of the relationship between family law principles and the Wrongful Death Act.

(more…)

The short answer is no, most are not hard hearted people. Most are, however, people who have not had significant tragedy enter their life and have lived a reasonably content life. By significant tragedy I am not talking about Aunt Jane passing away from old age or even the loss of someone’s parents. When I use the term tragedy in this context, I mean a significant, life altering, misfortune has happened to them that is typically not experienced by most people.

I have been in the insurance industry, worked for defense lawyers and worked for plaintiff attorneys. I was a Republican before the party deformed itself and I even campaigned for Richard Nixon (OK, I am sorry). My opinions and feelings about tort reform measures have never wavered; I can not spend enough energy opposing any action that hinders the justice system. Yeah, that’s right, I said it, the justice system; a term that is anathema to some. Tort reformers claim that the court system does not mete out justice. The framers never promised that the court system would render justice and anyone who believes otherwise is simply living in Disneyland. What our court system does promise is a “chance”, an “opportunity” to pursue justice. From my experience, most of the time, the system delivers justice; sometimes for all the wrong reasons, but it still delivers justice more often than not.

(more…)

News of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis and the mine failures in Utah are just the most recent reminders that issues of safety and accountability affect us all. Corporations with a profit motive have often and consistently acted like those profits were more important than the lives of the people we love. This has played itself out in an ominous fashion over the past 10 years as we’ve seen a coordinated effort by corporate interests to limit, or in some cases eliminate, your individual right to a jury trial. During that time those same corporations have made no effort to limit their own access to the courts.

Recently we’ve also seen the case of Melenna Del Valle who was killed in the interstate 90 tunnel collapse in Boston. In that matter the National Transportation Safety Board has just reported that the failure related to the design and materials utilized in the construction. The finding has brought forth a criminal indictment of at least one firm involved in the project. Unfortunately the criminal statute provides for only a $1,000 dollar penalty. I think most would agree that this is insufficient to inspire accountability or a change of heart on the part of a major corporation.

(more…)