Mrs. Kennedy's lawsuit
- Thread starter drail14me
- Start date
I was an insurance adjuster for four years after I graduated from Ole Miss. My client load included, among others, the Jackson Transit Authority and the Worker's Comp Claims for most of the off-shore oil service companies. I would estimate that of the 400 or 500 tort cases that came across my desk during that time, that about 30 or 40 included some sort of loss of consortium claim. I still remember when I got the first one and was discussing it with my supervisor. I said something similar to what you said about proving it in court.
My supervisor said something along the lines of "You better hope we never get to court with that as part of the claim, because if they are willing to talk about it in front of a jury everybody is going to be very, very uncomfortable. At the end of her testimony, her attorney will ask her if she is embarrassed to talk about this in front of people and she will cry and say yes and we will be paying her half-a-million dollars."
With all of those claims, only two ever made it to court because the rest of damages asked for was so outrageous and without merit that we weren't worried about listening to stories about a bad sex life.
This attorney is simply serving notice that he and his clients are willing to burn and pillage and bury both the cabbie and the valet. IT should be quite interesting opera... I hope Court TV picks it up.
My supervisor said something along the lines of "You better hope we never get to court with that as part of the claim, because if they are willing to talk about it in front of a jury everybody is going to be very, very uncomfortable. At the end of her testimony, her attorney will ask her if she is embarrassed to talk about this in front of people and she will cry and say yes and we will be paying her half-a-million dollars."
With all of those claims, only two ever made it to court because the rest of damages asked for was so outrageous and without merit that we weren't worried about listening to stories about a bad sex life.
This attorney is simply serving notice that he and his clients are willing to burn and pillage and bury both the cabbie and the valet. IT should be quite interesting opera... I hope Court TV picks it up.
I'm no lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but how in the hell does AK's wife testifying about their sex life in court, burn and pillage the cabbie and valet? Hell, seems to me they might enjoy hearing her talk about it.
Woof Man Jack said:
My guess, and usc can back this up, is that it's simply another log on the fire. And why would the valet and cab driver enjoy hearing her talk about that charge? After all, the charge is against them. I've never been in that spot, but I wouldn't enjoy hearing anything from anyone regarding charges against me.
of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence meaning one side has greater credible evidence than the other. The testimony of the husband and wife will undoubtedly outweigh the evidence put on by the cabbie and the married couple should prevail on the issue of whether such damages were incurred. The problem with the loss of consortium claim is that the jury must decide how much money an interuption of the marital relations should be worth and most importantly, whether the cabbie negligently or wrongfully caused the interuption. If AK slugged the guy and he filed a lawsuit in response, there should be no claim for loc because the cabbie would have been justified in his actions. If his suit is frivilous then he is in trouble. I don't think the claim is worth very much money and will cause lots of embarrassment, which is why you don't see it often.
I'm too lazy to research this, but wasn't it stated that this lawsuit was file 4 days after the incident? How could anyone reasonbly believe there is a lack of consortium in a relationship after not boning for 4 days? That's extremely frivolous in my opinion - unless they are some sort of sex freaks and their general well being depends on having sex 20 times a day (good luck proving that). If it isn't, I would expect boatloads of married men suing their wives or somebody for lack of consortium left and right - going a week without getting laid is common place in many a man's marriage. </p>
from evidence presented. while you can't really "prove" you haven't been having sex, both the husband and wife can testify, and usually a psychiatrist or other doctor will testify. usually, this is connected with a personal injury case. the husband's back was hurt. the doctor testifies that he can't lay down or do strenuous activity. the wife sues for loss of consortium. the jury can make a reasonable inference from the evidence that the wife did, in fact, suffer damages.
the husband and wife need to provide enough evidence so that the jury's inference is reasonable, not speculative. "the spouse seeking compensation for <span class="term" id="TMB">loss of consortium must show</span> that he or she suffered damages arising out of the other's injuries."
as someone else said, the burden of proof in a civil trial is "by preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." this means "more likely than not", or in other words, you just need 51%. this is why OJ was acquitted of murder, but found liable for wrongful death in the civil trial ("sure, there's some doubt, but he probably did it").
the husband and wife need to provide enough evidence so that the jury's inference is reasonable, not speculative. "the spouse seeking compensation for <span class="term" id="TMB">loss of consortium must show</span> that he or she suffered damages arising out of the other's injuries."
as someone else said, the burden of proof in a civil trial is "by preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." this means "more likely than not", or in other words, you just need 51%. this is why OJ was acquitted of murder, but found liable for wrongful death in the civil trial ("sure, there's some doubt, but he probably did it").
...all you need is "preponderance of the evidence."
This is much easier to prove than "reasonable doubt" type demands to be proven in a criminal court.
The Browns filed charges against O.J. Simpson in civil court & won. Why?
Because the preponderance of the evidence requirement was reached.
My point being, Mrs. Kennedy will not have much of a deck stacked against her in a civil court.
This is much easier to prove than "reasonable doubt" type demands to be proven in a criminal court.
The Browns filed charges against O.J. Simpson in civil court & won. Why?
Because the preponderance of the evidence requirement was reached.
My point being, Mrs. Kennedy will not have much of a deck stacked against her in a civil court.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">interrogatories or deposition. This could be home court fodder for years to come.</p>