December 4th, 2011

The Varieties of Religious Experience (Personal Religion)

At the onset we are struck by one great partition that divides the religious field. On one side of it lies institutional, on the other personal religion. Worship and sacrifice…theology and ceremony… are the essentials of religion in the institutional branch. [Here religion is] an external art, the art of winning the favor of the gods.

In the more personal branch of religion it is on the contrary the inner dispositions of man himself which form the center of interest… [Here] the individual transacts the business by himself alone and the ecclesiastical organization, with its priests and sacraments and other go-betweens, sinks to an altogether secondary place. The relation goes direct from heart to heart, from soul to soul, between man and maker.

Now in these lectures I propose to ignore the institutional branch entirely, to say nothing of the ecclesiastical organization, to consider as little as possible the systematic theology and the ideas about the gods themselves, and to confine myself as far as I can do to personal religion pure and simple. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 27th, 2011

Fourth Week of November-Giving

Recently I went to a local store, the type many shoppers were at on Black Friday. On Black Friday there were news stories of shoppers fighting one another to buy things. As Christmas approaches there will continue to be lots of shoppers, and more battles over merchandise.

When I was at the local store I noticed the Salvation Army bell ringer. There was no line for the Salvation Army money can. Only the bell ringer with rarely a person stopping to give.

Giving is still done. Giving will always be done. The Giving Tree story teaches how unconditional  giving makes a tree feel good and fulfilled. The tree never thinks about itself. It’s first thought is about giving even when giving is at its expense.

This season many will give nothing. Some will give a little. A few will give greatly in relation to their ability. The many will feel nothing. The some will feel some satisfaction. But the few will know their giving whether in time or money has made a difference and they will feel great.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 25th, 2011

Seattle Times pushes Sovereign Immunity

The Seattle Times Mission Statement provides in part: “To be an independent and influential advocate for children, schools [and] safe and clean communities… .” Interestingly in its lead editorial of November 23, 2011 the Times puts forth an argument to return to a form of sovereign immunity where there would still be the ability to bring a legal action against the state, but  the remedy for a fault free plaintiff would be limited.

The Times editorial is contrary to its mission statement and a misguided argument that if carried out will harm its individual subscribers.

Sovereign Immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity  is literally a creature of English kings, meaning, “The king can do no wrong.” Fortunately Washington abolished sovereign immunity in 1961. This is because the principle that government must be accountable legally for the harm it directly causes to its citizens is a fundamental principle of our revolutionary history and the American republic.

Difficulty of Lawsuits. Although Washington State has waived sovereign immunity suing and recovering from the state or a municipality in Washington is not an easy task. The Seattle Times editorial argues our legal system is “too quick to settle and more generous then it should be.” The reality is when cases settle insurance company lawyers, state attorneys, or municipal lawyers have concluded a settlement is in the best interest of their client. When a jury provides compensation to an injured plaintiff  it is not out of generosity. It is because the injuries are real, and the jury concludes the amount of its award will fairly compensate the injured plaintiff.

Joint and Several Liability. The Times misleads its readers on Washington law when it says Washington law should be changed “so the state doesn’t have more exposure then private entities.” The law is the state has additional procedural protections beyond private entities. Substantively it is on the same footing as a private entity.

What the Times wants is an end to joint and several liability as we have it today whenever the state or a municipal entity is a co-defendant in a lawsuit. The law as it stands allows joint and several liability to a fault free injured plaintiff when two or more defendants are liable. Under joint and several liability if the damages to a fault free plaintiff  are $100,000 with one defendant causing 10% of the negligence and the other causing 90% the plaintiff can take the $100,000 from both defendants or one defendant. If the state is 10% negligent and the other defendant is insolvent then plaintiff can still recover his $100,000 from the state.

The Times would change the law so the state would only be responsible for $10,000  of the $100,000 in damages. If the 90% liability defendant is insolvent the fault free plaintiff is precluded from collecting 90% of his judgment.

Unfair Result. The Times ignores its mission statement in calling for an end to joint and several liability when the the state is a co-defendant. Fault free babies, school children and common members of the community would in cases of an insolvent defendant be left with a partial recovery when the state is a co-defendant. Under our law as it stands the fault free injured person receives a full recovery. At times this does mean the co-defendant state pays all of the judgment. But when this happens the state has been found to be negligent and plaintiff has not. Unwittingly the Times is arguing against the babies, children and common members of the community it says it is an advocate for.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 21st, 2011

Thanksgiving and Relationships

My favorite holiday is Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is  about family, friends and community.

Thanksgiving is a day many Americans gather with family. Family members often travel great distances to be together on Thanksgiving.

Often at the Thanksgiving table are close friends who are family at least for Thanksgiving day. Some people get involved preparing and serving a Thanksgiving meal for homeless people so the homeless can celebrate Thanksgiving in a warm place with quality food.

For our forefathers Thanksgiving was a celebration of making it in the harsh environment of the New World. To survive they needed and got the help of Native Americans. The first Thanksgiving was a celebration between early Americans and Native Americans.

On this great holiday let us give thanks for family, friends and community. Let us realize that life is about relationships. If we have close relationships with family, friends, and  community we are fortunate, and we have much to be thankful for.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 16th, 2011

Jury Duty-Making Roads Safer

Recently in the Seattle Times there was an editorial titled Making Seattle roads safe for all. The editorial states about 26 people die each year in Seattle from traffic injuries. Thousands more are injured each year in automobile collisions.

The editorial reasons a combination of factors are involved in collisions that result in injury: impairment, speed, distraction, inattention, following too closely, and failure to yield to name a few. As pointed out in the editorial “these are not accidents.”  These are injury collisions that could have and should have been prevented.

The editorial says what is needed to make our roads safer is to adhere to the “E’s of traffic safety-education, enforcement, environment, and empathy-because it will take a multifaceted approach to fix our roads… .”  When we apply these “E’s” to the civil justice system we see juries have a role in making our roads safer.

Education. When a collision is caused by the negligence of another driver our civil justice system provides for damages to the injured driver. When fair damages are awarded by the  jury the negligent driver is educated on the reality his negligence will result in paying compensation to the injured party. This also has the effect of educating society beyond the parties in the lawsuit. When a jury speaks society listens, and the message when compensation is awarded to the injured driver is negligence has a consequence.

Enforcement. When a negligent driver causes injury to another he generally receives a traffic citation. Usually a relatively small fine is paid- small in relation  to what has been done to the injured driver. When the negligent driver fails to account for his negligence he often ends up in a civil trial. When a jury provides fair compensation for the injured driver we have a higher level of enforcement. We have enforcement where the amount of damages paid by the negligent driver directly relates to the damage he caused.

Environment. In some cases the injury is caused by unsafe road conditions that the city, county, or state could have and should have made safe. When negligence is proved against the government, and fair damages are awarded, the government is held accountable for negligently allowing an unsafe environment. This in turn causes the government to be more diligent in ensuring a safe environment, because to not do so will result in a financial consequence.

Empathy. In our civil justice system this means caring for the parties in the case. When the plaintiff has been left with injuries through no fault of his own the caring thing to do is provide him with fair compensation. This is what the law provides, and in this way the law has empathy. Jurors are the caring arm of the law in a negligence case.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 13th, 2011

Third Week of November-Get Involved

With the shocking news of the sexual abuse that occurred at Penn State University by a former Penn State University coach many are asking why the coaches, academics, and others who had knowledge of what was happening or knowledge that should have led to further inquiry did nothing.

The Good Samaritan is a rare individual. Psychologists have studied why people choose to not get involved in helping a stranger in need. Often it is because others are also observing and the responsibility is diffused among the group. This was not the Penn State situation.

In the Penn State situation the choice not to get involved was made because of the prestige of those involved. It was as if getting involved and bringing to the forefront the abuse would mar a great institution and program.

Here we have a situation where the institution and program were great because they stood for excellence. Sadly not getting involved out of fear of tarnishing the institution and program has led to a situation where the institution and program are tarnished beyond those who could have intervened and dealt with the abuse.

The vast majority of Penn State academics and students would have got involved. The vast majority of those at Penn State stand for excellence. The vast majority at Penn State University continue to stand for excellence.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 9th, 2011

Social Networking and Law

In the movie Social Network Sean Parker says: ” When you go fishing you can catch a lot of fish, or you can catch a big fish. You ever walk into a guy’s den and see a picture of him standing next to fourteen trout?”

The movie is a fictional version of how Facebook  was started. Today it is a rare client who does not have a Facebook page or some type of internet presence.

Defense lawyers and insurance companies know this. Defense lawyers and insurance companies may use your client’s Facebook and/or internet postings to hurt your case. The harm can turn the case from a big fish to a little trout. This is why it is necessary to discuss the internet with our client.

Clients need to know that once a thought is posted on line regardless of whether it’s Facebook, a website, or an e-mail the post is available to the internet world. The rules of discovery allow the defense lawyer to request postings on the internet. Defense lawyers often seek production of internet social network postings, e-mails, and website postings.

Clients need to know there is nothing private on the internet. Clients need to refrain from posting any thought they do not want the world to know. On internet postings including e-mails follow these rules:

1. Never post content you do not want the whole world to see.

2. Never post when angry.

3. Think before the post is submitted.

4. Never post about your case (before trial/settlement, during, or after).

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 6th, 2011

Second Week of November-The Seasons

In Seattle our four seasons blur together more than distinctly define themselves. In Seattle all seasons have cloudy days. Few in summer, more in fall, a lot in winter, and less in spring.

The older I get the less I like winter, and the more I like late spring, summer, and early fall. But I am happy we have four seasons. I like the variety. I like days where it is easy to go to work, and on weekends spend time inside.

The seasons are like life. There are great days, OK days, and difficult days. But all days are good days. Life is what we make it. As Walter Hagen said: take the time to smell the roses. As I say take the time to enjoy life even when there are no roses.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

November 2nd, 2011

Try the Case

To be effective a personal injury lawyer must be prepared to try the case. This post discusses the mentality of insurance companies and why filing the case is usually the only way to get a fair resolution for our client.

The Insurance Company. In a personal injury case the defendant is an individual or corporation in name but in reality we are pitted against an insurance company. Insurance companies deal in predictability. Insurance companies appreciate personal injury cases that present risk. A personal injury case  presents risk when it is going to trial.

The Traditional Model. Under the traditional model, the lawyer sends the insurance company a settlement demand before filing the case. This model evolved years ago when insurance companies were doing well on Wall Street from investment of their premiums beyond reserves. In recent years this has not been the case, so insurance companies are no longer willing to pay fair value for a non filed case that is presented for settlement.

Today’s Model.  The way to get fair value for the case today is try the case. Cases that must be moved to trial are cases where the client has permanent injuries and the insurance company fails to offer policy limits or an amount equal to a fair trial result. Limits will not be offered unless it is clear to the insurance company the case has a value in excess of limits. Even then the insurance company may not offer limits unless it knows the lawyer is a lawyer known to try cases. Under today’s model often the best course is to forget trying to settle the case and file it without discussion with the insurance company.

Settlement. After the case is filed and prepared for trial then it may be ready to settle. The mind set must be “I am going to try this case, and I am ready to try this case.” At this point we deal from a position of strength and the insurance company knows this. This is the point that settlement for fair value is possible. Fair value is the amount we believe the jury will pay minus the additional cost that will be incurred if the case proceeds to trial. When the insurance company fails to appreciate the case, proceed to trial.

Trial. Try the case at the highest level. In opening tell the jury the story with a straight forward factual narrative beginning with the defendant’s conduct. For plaintiff’s case have lay witness testimony from witnesses with significant knowledge of plaintiff and the liability facts. For the injuries present expert medical testimony from the treating physician whenever possible. In cross examination stick to major points remembering short is better then long. Rarely object, show professionalism and spontaneity. In closing introduce appropriate emotion and passion. Propose a verdict that is reasonable and show how it will make life better for all.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

October 30th, 2011

First Week of November-Play the Hand You’re Dealt

 

Recently I was talking to a young lawyer who has a Down’s Syndrome child. The child is a go getter and a constant joy. He told me a story of a an older lawyer he met who has a Down’s Syndrome child who is now 45 years old and working at Microsoft. The man is happy, close to his family and contributing to society. Everyday he makes someone smile. We can learn from the little boy and the 45 year old man:

Believe in Yourself. First, believe in yourself. The little boy and the man do not doubt them self. They accept who they are and move forward to to be the best they can be.  Like the little boy and the man accept who you are and where you are. Recognize you can contribute.

Do the Best with What you Have. Second, use the talent you have to make a difference. Think of life as a tug of war with each member of the team tugging as hard as possible. Use your unique qualities to make life better for others.

Never Quit. Third, never quit on yourself. When the going gets tough and you want to give up remember the Down Syndrome guy at Microsoft. He goes to work every day, he does the best job he can, and he never quits on himself. He only knows one way to go and that’s to enjoy every day, move forward, and make the world a better place.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.