Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
ParticipantMy own experience is that slowing down on the freeway isn’t going to make a lot of difference. The main way to cut back is to significantly reduce the overall quantity of driving. ie, don’t commute 40 miles each way to work and back. By limiting my commute to about 5 miles each way really helps.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantMy own experience is that slowing down on the freeway isn’t going to make a lot of difference. The main way to cut back is to significantly reduce the overall quantity of driving. ie, don’t commute 40 miles each way to work and back. By limiting my commute to about 5 miles each way really helps.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantIf you like political thrillers, I definitely recommend Vince Flynn’s series of Mitch Rapp books.
ParticipantIf you like political thrillers, I definitely recommend Vince Flynn’s series of Mitch Rapp books.
ParticipantIf you like political thrillers, I definitely recommend Vince Flynn’s series of Mitch Rapp books.
ParticipantIf you like political thrillers, I definitely recommend Vince Flynn’s series of Mitch Rapp books.
ParticipantIf you like political thrillers, I definitely recommend Vince Flynn’s series of Mitch Rapp books.
ParticipantSorry, but we seem to have hijacked this thread a bit….
When I “won” my lawyer got 35% of the take. That was his “fee”. I was out of pocket nothing for legal fees.
My injuries have pretty much healed. Despite being broadsided by a pickup truck going probably 35-45mph, all I had was a torn ACL. If I had been a foot slower, I would have had a crushed leg, two feet slower, and I probably would have been simply run over. So, despite two surgeries to repair my ACL and remove scar tissue, I’m pretty good shape. I was a runner, and had run a marathon. Every since the accident I’ve been a much slower runner and can’t run over about 8miles without my knee aching. But, trust me I don’t moan about that, I always count my lucky starts that I have a knee to ache. (Oh and the fact I was wearing a full face helmet and a leather jacket with armor in it definitely helped)
After my knee regained it flexibility, yes I got another motorcycle – a Ducati Super Light. But as the freeways grew more congested, I sold it and never bought another. Now I’m married, and I don’t think my wife would tolerate me having another rocket.
bsrsharma – In a injury accident, the jury is not allowed to know anything about any party having insurance. The thinking is, that if a juror knows there is insurance, they will be more likely to give a judgement that awards the insurance’s money, whereas if they know the person doesn’t have insurance, they would be awarding the defendant’s money and less likely to make a big award. The juror is supposed to be making an award based on what the damages are worth, not what/who can pay.
All the attorneys, and the judge are clear to you before you go into the court room to testify, that you are not to mention anything about insurance, and the lawyers don’t ask any questions that will give you the opportunity to say anything about insurance. This isn’t a conspiracy in the evil sense, it’s all very out in the open. And there’s no perjury, because you are never asked about insurance, so you never say anything about it. So, no lie told, only omission.
In my case, all the medical bills had to have “co-payments” whited out since they aren’t allowed to be shown. So, your medical bills that you claim are reduced by your co-payments, and you don’t get to sue for them. But it gets covered because the jury typically awards more than the actual medical bills. (And in my case they awarded three times medical bills. In the end, my health insurance got reimbursed a third, the attorney got a third and I got a third for putting up with this charade.)
The part that rubs me, and that I find so hypocritical is that we select these people to be on the juror because we trust them. Then we make speeches about how “everything” is going to be brought to the court and the truth will prevail. Except, “everything” excludes a variety of things. (Based on the arguments of the lawyers to the judge about x and y not being relevant, and thus inadmissible) Well, if we trust these people to decide on the verdict, why don’t we trust them that if we tell them everything they will in the end decide on something fair. I guess, because in truth we don’t trust the jurors. After all, they are 12 people who couldn’t think of an excuse to get out of jury duty!
Just my cynical 2cents worth,
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, but we seem to have hijacked this thread a bit….
When I “won” my lawyer got 35% of the take. That was his “fee”. I was out of pocket nothing for legal fees.
My injuries have pretty much healed. Despite being broadsided by a pickup truck going probably 35-45mph, all I had was a torn ACL. If I had been a foot slower, I would have had a crushed leg, two feet slower, and I probably would have been simply run over. So, despite two surgeries to repair my ACL and remove scar tissue, I’m pretty good shape. I was a runner, and had run a marathon. Every since the accident I’ve been a much slower runner and can’t run over about 8miles without my knee aching. But, trust me I don’t moan about that, I always count my lucky starts that I have a knee to ache. (Oh and the fact I was wearing a full face helmet and a leather jacket with armor in it definitely helped)
After my knee regained it flexibility, yes I got another motorcycle – a Ducati Super Light. But as the freeways grew more congested, I sold it and never bought another. Now I’m married, and I don’t think my wife would tolerate me having another rocket.
bsrsharma – In a injury accident, the jury is not allowed to know anything about any party having insurance. The thinking is, that if a juror knows there is insurance, they will be more likely to give a judgement that awards the insurance’s money, whereas if they know the person doesn’t have insurance, they would be awarding the defendant’s money and less likely to make a big award. The juror is supposed to be making an award based on what the damages are worth, not what/who can pay.
All the attorneys, and the judge are clear to you before you go into the court room to testify, that you are not to mention anything about insurance, and the lawyers don’t ask any questions that will give you the opportunity to say anything about insurance. This isn’t a conspiracy in the evil sense, it’s all very out in the open. And there’s no perjury, because you are never asked about insurance, so you never say anything about it. So, no lie told, only omission.
In my case, all the medical bills had to have “co-payments” whited out since they aren’t allowed to be shown. So, your medical bills that you claim are reduced by your co-payments, and you don’t get to sue for them. But it gets covered because the jury typically awards more than the actual medical bills. (And in my case they awarded three times medical bills. In the end, my health insurance got reimbursed a third, the attorney got a third and I got a third for putting up with this charade.)
The part that rubs me, and that I find so hypocritical is that we select these people to be on the juror because we trust them. Then we make speeches about how “everything” is going to be brought to the court and the truth will prevail. Except, “everything” excludes a variety of things. (Based on the arguments of the lawyers to the judge about x and y not being relevant, and thus inadmissible) Well, if we trust these people to decide on the verdict, why don’t we trust them that if we tell them everything they will in the end decide on something fair. I guess, because in truth we don’t trust the jurors. After all, they are 12 people who couldn’t think of an excuse to get out of jury duty!
Just my cynical 2cents worth,
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, but we seem to have hijacked this thread a bit….
When I “won” my lawyer got 35% of the take. That was his “fee”. I was out of pocket nothing for legal fees.
My injuries have pretty much healed. Despite being broadsided by a pickup truck going probably 35-45mph, all I had was a torn ACL. If I had been a foot slower, I would have had a crushed leg, two feet slower, and I probably would have been simply run over. So, despite two surgeries to repair my ACL and remove scar tissue, I’m pretty good shape. I was a runner, and had run a marathon. Every since the accident I’ve been a much slower runner and can’t run over about 8miles without my knee aching. But, trust me I don’t moan about that, I always count my lucky starts that I have a knee to ache. (Oh and the fact I was wearing a full face helmet and a leather jacket with armor in it definitely helped)
After my knee regained it flexibility, yes I got another motorcycle – a Ducati Super Light. But as the freeways grew more congested, I sold it and never bought another. Now I’m married, and I don’t think my wife would tolerate me having another rocket.
bsrsharma – In a injury accident, the jury is not allowed to know anything about any party having insurance. The thinking is, that if a juror knows there is insurance, they will be more likely to give a judgement that awards the insurance’s money, whereas if they know the person doesn’t have insurance, they would be awarding the defendant’s money and less likely to make a big award. The juror is supposed to be making an award based on what the damages are worth, not what/who can pay.
All the attorneys, and the judge are clear to you before you go into the court room to testify, that you are not to mention anything about insurance, and the lawyers don’t ask any questions that will give you the opportunity to say anything about insurance. This isn’t a conspiracy in the evil sense, it’s all very out in the open. And there’s no perjury, because you are never asked about insurance, so you never say anything about it. So, no lie told, only omission.
In my case, all the medical bills had to have “co-payments” whited out since they aren’t allowed to be shown. So, your medical bills that you claim are reduced by your co-payments, and you don’t get to sue for them. But it gets covered because the jury typically awards more than the actual medical bills. (And in my case they awarded three times medical bills. In the end, my health insurance got reimbursed a third, the attorney got a third and I got a third for putting up with this charade.)
The part that rubs me, and that I find so hypocritical is that we select these people to be on the juror because we trust them. Then we make speeches about how “everything” is going to be brought to the court and the truth will prevail. Except, “everything” excludes a variety of things. (Based on the arguments of the lawyers to the judge about x and y not being relevant, and thus inadmissible) Well, if we trust these people to decide on the verdict, why don’t we trust them that if we tell them everything they will in the end decide on something fair. I guess, because in truth we don’t trust the jurors. After all, they are 12 people who couldn’t think of an excuse to get out of jury duty!
Just my cynical 2cents worth,
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, but we seem to have hijacked this thread a bit….
When I “won” my lawyer got 35% of the take. That was his “fee”. I was out of pocket nothing for legal fees.
My injuries have pretty much healed. Despite being broadsided by a pickup truck going probably 35-45mph, all I had was a torn ACL. If I had been a foot slower, I would have had a crushed leg, two feet slower, and I probably would have been simply run over. So, despite two surgeries to repair my ACL and remove scar tissue, I’m pretty good shape. I was a runner, and had run a marathon. Every since the accident I’ve been a much slower runner and can’t run over about 8miles without my knee aching. But, trust me I don’t moan about that, I always count my lucky starts that I have a knee to ache. (Oh and the fact I was wearing a full face helmet and a leather jacket with armor in it definitely helped)
After my knee regained it flexibility, yes I got another motorcycle – a Ducati Super Light. But as the freeways grew more congested, I sold it and never bought another. Now I’m married, and I don’t think my wife would tolerate me having another rocket.
bsrsharma – In a injury accident, the jury is not allowed to know anything about any party having insurance. The thinking is, that if a juror knows there is insurance, they will be more likely to give a judgement that awards the insurance’s money, whereas if they know the person doesn’t have insurance, they would be awarding the defendant’s money and less likely to make a big award. The juror is supposed to be making an award based on what the damages are worth, not what/who can pay.
All the attorneys, and the judge are clear to you before you go into the court room to testify, that you are not to mention anything about insurance, and the lawyers don’t ask any questions that will give you the opportunity to say anything about insurance. This isn’t a conspiracy in the evil sense, it’s all very out in the open. And there’s no perjury, because you are never asked about insurance, so you never say anything about it. So, no lie told, only omission.
In my case, all the medical bills had to have “co-payments” whited out since they aren’t allowed to be shown. So, your medical bills that you claim are reduced by your co-payments, and you don’t get to sue for them. But it gets covered because the jury typically awards more than the actual medical bills. (And in my case they awarded three times medical bills. In the end, my health insurance got reimbursed a third, the attorney got a third and I got a third for putting up with this charade.)
The part that rubs me, and that I find so hypocritical is that we select these people to be on the juror because we trust them. Then we make speeches about how “everything” is going to be brought to the court and the truth will prevail. Except, “everything” excludes a variety of things. (Based on the arguments of the lawyers to the judge about x and y not being relevant, and thus inadmissible) Well, if we trust these people to decide on the verdict, why don’t we trust them that if we tell them everything they will in the end decide on something fair. I guess, because in truth we don’t trust the jurors. After all, they are 12 people who couldn’t think of an excuse to get out of jury duty!
Just my cynical 2cents worth,
XBoxBoy
ParticipantSorry, but we seem to have hijacked this thread a bit….
When I “won” my lawyer got 35% of the take. That was his “fee”. I was out of pocket nothing for legal fees.
My injuries have pretty much healed. Despite being broadsided by a pickup truck going probably 35-45mph, all I had was a torn ACL. If I had been a foot slower, I would have had a crushed leg, two feet slower, and I probably would have been simply run over. So, despite two surgeries to repair my ACL and remove scar tissue, I’m pretty good shape. I was a runner, and had run a marathon. Every since the accident I’ve been a much slower runner and can’t run over about 8miles without my knee aching. But, trust me I don’t moan about that, I always count my lucky starts that I have a knee to ache. (Oh and the fact I was wearing a full face helmet and a leather jacket with armor in it definitely helped)
After my knee regained it flexibility, yes I got another motorcycle – a Ducati Super Light. But as the freeways grew more congested, I sold it and never bought another. Now I’m married, and I don’t think my wife would tolerate me having another rocket.
bsrsharma – In a injury accident, the jury is not allowed to know anything about any party having insurance. The thinking is, that if a juror knows there is insurance, they will be more likely to give a judgement that awards the insurance’s money, whereas if they know the person doesn’t have insurance, they would be awarding the defendant’s money and less likely to make a big award. The juror is supposed to be making an award based on what the damages are worth, not what/who can pay.
All the attorneys, and the judge are clear to you before you go into the court room to testify, that you are not to mention anything about insurance, and the lawyers don’t ask any questions that will give you the opportunity to say anything about insurance. This isn’t a conspiracy in the evil sense, it’s all very out in the open. And there’s no perjury, because you are never asked about insurance, so you never say anything about it. So, no lie told, only omission.
In my case, all the medical bills had to have “co-payments” whited out since they aren’t allowed to be shown. So, your medical bills that you claim are reduced by your co-payments, and you don’t get to sue for them. But it gets covered because the jury typically awards more than the actual medical bills. (And in my case they awarded three times medical bills. In the end, my health insurance got reimbursed a third, the attorney got a third and I got a third for putting up with this charade.)
The part that rubs me, and that I find so hypocritical is that we select these people to be on the juror because we trust them. Then we make speeches about how “everything” is going to be brought to the court and the truth will prevail. Except, “everything” excludes a variety of things. (Based on the arguments of the lawyers to the judge about x and y not being relevant, and thus inadmissible) Well, if we trust these people to decide on the verdict, why don’t we trust them that if we tell them everything they will in the end decide on something fair. I guess, because in truth we don’t trust the jurors. After all, they are 12 people who couldn’t think of an excuse to get out of jury duty!
Just my cynical 2cents worth,
XBoxBoy
ParticipantNostradamus – My motorcycle case turned out even more bizarre. We ended up going to trial, because there were two insurance companies covering the guy who hit me. (There was no question of fault, the guy who hit me admitted he was talking on the cell phone and didn’t notice the red light until it was too late. The only aspect in contention was how much should be paid for medical bills, pain and suffering, etc) The amount we wanted exceeded the limits of the first insurance company, who hired the attorney. Thus the opposing attorney decided his paying client had nothing to lose by going to trial. He could either settle for the full amount of his paying client’s policy limits, or go to trial and who knows maybe get a surprise verdict that would let his paying client pay less than his policy limits. I even sat in on the conference in judges chamber when this was discussed, and everyone, my lawyer, the judge, the opposing lawyer, was open about it.
In the end, we won and the first insurance payed full amount up to policy limit, and the second insurance came in to cover the rest. So I guess the lawyer’s strategy didn’t work.
Ironically, ever bit of evidence, all the medical bills, etc and my testimony all had to be wiped of any fact that anybody had insurance. I still shake my head when I think of myself getting on the stand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, knowing full well that there were plenty of aspects of the case that I could not mention, least I cause a mistrial. It’s just one more example in my mind of how hypocritical our justice system is.
To add to this, I felt like a pawn in a lawyers game once I lawyered up. I would have settled with the insurance company for the cost of the motorcycle. I grew up believing that you don’t sue people for accidents. But the system is not set up like that at all.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantNostradamus – My motorcycle case turned out even more bizarre. We ended up going to trial, because there were two insurance companies covering the guy who hit me. (There was no question of fault, the guy who hit me admitted he was talking on the cell phone and didn’t notice the red light until it was too late. The only aspect in contention was how much should be paid for medical bills, pain and suffering, etc) The amount we wanted exceeded the limits of the first insurance company, who hired the attorney. Thus the opposing attorney decided his paying client had nothing to lose by going to trial. He could either settle for the full amount of his paying client’s policy limits, or go to trial and who knows maybe get a surprise verdict that would let his paying client pay less than his policy limits. I even sat in on the conference in judges chamber when this was discussed, and everyone, my lawyer, the judge, the opposing lawyer, was open about it.
In the end, we won and the first insurance payed full amount up to policy limit, and the second insurance came in to cover the rest. So I guess the lawyer’s strategy didn’t work.
Ironically, ever bit of evidence, all the medical bills, etc and my testimony all had to be wiped of any fact that anybody had insurance. I still shake my head when I think of myself getting on the stand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, knowing full well that there were plenty of aspects of the case that I could not mention, least I cause a mistrial. It’s just one more example in my mind of how hypocritical our justice system is.
To add to this, I felt like a pawn in a lawyers game once I lawyered up. I would have settled with the insurance company for the cost of the motorcycle. I grew up believing that you don’t sue people for accidents. But the system is not set up like that at all.
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts
