Las Vegas Car Accident Lawyer, Donald Kudler, was interviewed by Lawsuit Legal as part of their Power Lawyers series. Read Donald Kudler’s Lawsuit Legal interview by clicking here.
I have a case where my client had backed out of parking space, stopped and started to proceed when another driver backed out and hit her car. It is our position, of course, that the other driver is 100% at fault for the accident as our client had clearly gained control of the driving aisle and the other driver failed to look before backing and crashing into our client’s car.
The other driver’s insurer, Loya Casualty Insurance Company, has taken the position that each of the drivers is 50% at fault for the accident and, therefore, my client is barred from recovery. I have explained to them that the law in Nevada is that a person may recover from another if the injured person is not MORE at fault for the accident than the other. Here’s the statute behind my statement:
41.141. When comparative negligence not bar to recovery; jury instructions; liability of multiple defendants.
1. In any action to recover damages for death or injury to persons or for injury to property in which comparative negligence is asserted as a defense, the comparative negligence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s decedent does not bar a recovery if that negligence was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence of the parties to the action against whom recovery is sought.
2. In those cases, the judge shall instruct the jury that:
(a) The plaintiff may not recover if the plaintiff’s comparative negligence or that of the plaintiff’s decedent is greater than the negligence of the defendant or the combined negligence of multiple defendants.
(b) If the jury determines the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it shall return:
(1) By general verdict the total amount of damages the plaintiff would be entitled to recover without regard to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence; and
(2) A special verdict indicating the percentage of negligence attributable to each party remaining in the action.
The Statute is pretty clear and supports my statement to the Loya Insurance adjuster who says that he needs to take this to his legal department for a determination. O.K., fine, here’s some case law that supports my statement if the statute is not clear enough for them.
In Turnbow v. Wasden, 608 F. Supp. 237 (Nev. 1985), Ms. Turnbow, who was intoxicated was returning to her truck after relieving herself o the side of the road crossed into the path of an oncoming tractor trailer. Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr. wrote:
The ultimate issue here is whether Mr. Wasden was more or less negligent than Ms. Turnbow. Plaintiffs’ attorney has done a highly skillful job of endeavoring to develop and exploit all the possible indications of negligence on the part of Mr. Wasden. Mr. Wasden’s conduct was not perfect, but comparing the conduct of Mr. Wasden and Ms. Turnbow, Ms. Turnbow’s conduct was far more negligent than that of Mr. Wasden. The preponderance of the evidence is that the negligence of Ms. Turnbow contributed more to cause the accident and her resulting injuries than any negligence of Mr. Wasden. Upon making this finding, this Court may not award any damages to Ms. Turnbow. See, NRS 41.141(1). Nevada law adopts the comparative negligence standard, thus, precluding recovery if plaintiff’s actions are more negligent than defendant’s. Id.
Hopefully, Loya Insurance will realize that they are wrong on this issue and that my client is not barred from recovery based on their belief that a person is barred from recovery if they are 50% responsible for an accident. Even If they do make an offer to pay ½ of the damages, we will likely not accept it as their insured was 100% liable for the accident.
Many people see lawyers as arrogant, thoughtless, and haughty….I’m sure there are hundreds of other, less than favorable terms, used by people when speaking about us lawyers.
Believe it or not, some of us work hard to show that we, as lawyers, aren’t just arrogant jerks. Sometimes, this work is undermined by the actions of other attorneys.
I went to Court to handle a simple traffic matter today and ran in to two people who would support the equation lawyer = (insert your favorite derogative here – with or without expletives.)
First, I walk into the Traffic Counter area where one of the Traffic machines that prints out tickets for attorneys/runners/etc was not working. An attorney walks in and tries to show me how to use the machine with a very demeaning attitude. When she realizes I was right when I said the machine was not working (as a result of being out of paper to print on), does she allow me to use the other machine??? NO – she jumps right in ahead of me. No apology, no excuse me, no “you were right”, nothing. Just the right to go first on the other machine which she does without batting an eye. I’m sure she didn’t realize I was an attorney since I was not in a suit today. I’m not so sure it would have mattered.
So, after that experience, ‘m annoyed that I’ve run into one arrogant attorney. A bad enough experience once, but not enough for me this day – or so it appears.
I leave the Courthouse and down the steps outside the South Entrance. There – parked in the middle of the crosswalk – was a BIG RED TRUCK with “QUALITY BUDGET LEGAL” written all over it while the driver and some guy in a suit (who one would assume was another lawyer) were talking and blocking the crosswalk. I mean, really??? Come on! These guys don’t think this makes attorneys look like major (insert your favorite plural derogative here – with or without expletive.) I wonder if anyone who saw this rude act would want to retain this person as Counsel?
People: it’s our image and for us to protect. Obviously these two (or three) don’t care enough about our image to bother with the slightest regard for others.
I tried to get a picture, but the driver moved a bit out of the crosswalk. He probably heard my comment about it not being a parking spot.
Parties Should Have a Right to Know if Jurors Have Had Any Dealings with, or Knowledge of, Arbitrators Involved in Their Cases
I recently represented a victim of a slip and fall personal injury case in a Short Trial. I have done many Short Trials over the years and noticed that something was missing at this most recent Trial – asking the Jury if they are familiar with the Arbitrator who rendered the Arbitration Award.
First a little background…..
In Nevada, cases with an expected value of less than $50,000.00 are usually submitted to Arbitration for a ruling by an Arbitrator. If either Party is unhappy with the Arbitrator’s Decision, they can file a Request for Trial De Novo placing the case into either a conventional Trial or Short Trial. During the Trial, the Jury is given evidence of the Arbitrator’s Award pursuant to NRS 38.259. That award includes the Arbitrator’s name and signature and will be included in the evidence the Jury considers as it deliberates.
As you may have seen on televised trials, movies or TV shows, Parties and their Attorneys are allowed to ask Jurors questions to help them choose a Jury that will be fair and impartial. This is known as Jury Voir Dire and will be addresses in detail in another blog post. In my experience, Judges ask a set of basic questions prior to the Parties being allowed to question the Jurors as a group and individually. Among those questions, the Judges ask if any of the Jurors are familiar with the Parties, their Attorneys, any of the witnesses who may be called, and, in personal injury cases, any of the physicians who treated the Plaintiff who is suing for injuries cased by an accident.
Now to the issue…..
In all of the Trials I have done where the case had previously been heard by an Arbitrator, I have never seen/heard the Jury asked if they were familiar with the Arbitrator in a case. I think this question has simply been overlooked. It should be asked of every Jury Panel where a case had been submitted to an Arbitrator and the Arbitrator’s name and Award are disclosed the the Jury.
NRS 38.259 requires a Jury Instruction be given to the Jury which includes the language:
The findings of the arbitrator may be given the same weight as other evidence or may be disregarded. However, you must not give those findings undue weight because they were made by an arbitrator, and you must not use the findings of the arbitrator as a substitute for your independent judgment. You must weigh all the evidence that was presented at trial and arrive at a conclusion based upon your own determination of the cause of action.
This is all fine and well, but what about the case where a Juror may not be able to give the Award the same weight as the other evidence? A Juror may know that the Arbitrator has strong leanings in a type of case. Since I work in personal injury representing victims of personal injury accidents, I can imagine a case where an Arbitrator has strong feelings for or against these cases. Suppose an Arbitrator is a Defense Attorney who believes all personal injury cases are made up or exaggerated and a potential Juror is familiar with that Arbitrator. If the Juror has good feelings about that Arbitrator he may give the Award great weight and ignores the rest of the evidence. If the potential Juror has strong negative feelings towards the Arbitrator (if, for instance, he was the adverse attorney involving the potential Juror), she may want to give a verdict strongly contradictory to the Arbitrator’s Award to “show him.” Parties and their Attorneys need to know whether or not any familiarity with an Arbitrator will influence the potential Juror’s ability to be fair and impartial and the Judges should be asking Jurors to disclose this information.