This is one of the most common war stories you hear in the medical malpractice world – someone in the courtroom collapses during a medical malpractice trial, and the defendant doctor runs in to render aid and save the day.
Everyone claims to know someone this has happened to. It’s the Eddie Murphy in the elevator of lawyer stories.
Here’s one time it actually happened.
Bottom line is that the District Court allowed everyone involved to compose themselves over the lunch hour, polled the jury, and when the jury said they could still be fair and impartial, refused the Plaintiff’s request for a mistrial. The Court of Appeals reversed.
I tend to agree with the Court of Appeals. The bigger key is that if this happens to you, there are some citations in the opinion with other cases – so remember that if you need a quick brief on the issue.
EDIT: The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and allowed the verdict to stand. I disagree, but I see their logic. The opinion is here.
(Howard Zimmerle is a personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer in Rock Island, Illinois, practicing in Iowa and Illinois. He can be reached at 309-794-1660 or at hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com).
A certain firm (I won’t link to them) has been flooding the Iowa airwaves with TV ads featuring William Shatner. We all love Shatner, right? He’s Captain Kirk! He’s Denny Crane! He was on that episode of the Twilight Zone where the Gremlin attacks the plane!
So if this firm could get William Shatner’s support, they must be pretty good, right?
Well, here is William Shatner shilling for some other law firms:
Some firm in Bakersfield California
This one in Virginia
This one in Detroit
You get the idea. There’s a company that cranks these ads out for law firms all over the country. Sometimes they claim to be “local” and say the name of your community when they are in, say, Wisconsin.
That’s not to say that firms who use these ads are bad lawyers. Or good lawyers. I’m sure some are good, some are bad – all have a good advertising budget.
Just know what’s going on. Do your research when picking a lawyer.
(Howard Zimmerle is an attorney with Warner & Zimmerle. We have offices in Rock Island Illinois and Davenport Iowa. We don’t claim to have other offices. William Shatner has never said our name, to the best of our knowledge. You can reach us at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com).
Interesting Iowa Supreme Court decision today. The essential holding is that a party to a civil action does not necessarily have to show up for trial if they can prove their case otherwise. Of course, in most cases, I’d strongly recommend that your client show up.
The real takehome lesson for lawyers here is to make sure to subpoena the opposing party for trial if you need/want any of their testimony. In Illinois, one would do something similar with a Rule 237 notice.
(Howard Zimmerle is a trial lawyer practicing in Iowa and Illinois. He represents people who have been injured in car accidents, by medical malpractice, or in many other ways. He can be reached at hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com or 309-794-1660).
I assume the law on vehicle damage is pretty much the same in every state, right? The general rule is that the plaintiff gets the reasonable cost to repair the vehicle or the value of the vehicle, whichever one is lower.
In trial, the proof should go as follows: Plaintiff proves the value of the repair. Defendant either accepts the value, presents evidence that the real value of the repair is lower or that the value of the repair exceeds the value of the vehicle. If the defendant doesn’t do that, and liability is clear, the plaintiff should win.
Emphasis on “should.” In Iowa, this apparently isn’t the case. The case of Phipps v. Boone County requires the plaintiff to prove both:
A. The reasonable value of repairs, and
B. The value of the vehicle immediately prior to the collision.
Even if there is no objection.
I disagree with this… but Iowa lawyers need to be aware of this when handling property damage in car accident cases.
(Howard Zimmerle is a personal injury lawyer who handles auto accident cases in Iowa and Illinois. He can be reached at 309-794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com)
What’s my case worth?
Any good lawyer knows that the answer to that question requires a lot of knowledge – knowledge not just about the facts of the case at hand but about which facts may drive the value of the case and why.
One valuable piece of the puzzle is to see what juries have done in the past with similar cases. Even that has its limitations. Obviously not all juries are the same. Different states, different counties, different judges, attorneys, juries, etc would lead to different results in most cases. The key when looking at jury verdicts is to look at trends and patterns.
The Iowa Bar Association now has a free searchable database of Iowa jury verdicts. It’s incomplete (missing some cases), and it doesn’t give you much information about the facts of most cases, but it’s something. Any weapons in your arsenal that can help you value cases (and convince insurance adjusters, attorneys or even your own clients) that the value you put in your demand is correct sure can’t hurt.
(Howard Zimmerle is a plaintiff’s trial lawyer practicing in Iowa and Illinois. You can reach him at (309) 794-1660 or hzimmerle [at] mjwlaw.com).
We all know the drill. Before a child goes on a field trip or something, the parent has to sign a permission slip.
The permission slip will typically waive liability for what could happen – in other words, Johnny goes on a field trip with his school, gets hurt, Johnny’s mom can’t sue the school even if they were at fault.
Not anymore. The Iowa Supreme Court (battered and bruised as they are) ruled that preinjury waivers signed on behalf of a minor are void as against public policy. That’s a pretty big decision. You can read it here.
Oh, and for those who might blame the three justices who were thrown out – one of those three dissented from the opinion.
As most practicing Iowa lawyers should know, the Iowa Supreme Court did away with the old doctrine of Proximate Cause last year (with some clarification in the Royal Indemnity case earlier this month) and replacing it with “Scope of Liability.”
The big headache for judges and trial lawyers is what the new jury instructions will look like.
Well, you’re in luck. I’m on the Iowa Jury Instructions Committee, and we approved two new jury instructions to replace the old proximate cause instruction – one on “factual cause” (ie did defendant’s conduct cause plaintiff’s damages) and another one on “scope of liability” (to be used only in rare cases – this is usually a question for the court)
Both instructions, after the jump.