On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:12:26 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> .. > I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with > .. > the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It > .. > seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge > .. > amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be > .. > nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant > .. > is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the > .. > awards should not be a factor in their decisions. > Here in Arizona, at least, even mentioning the word, "insur(e)(ed)(er)" > during a trial will result in a mistrial as it prejudices the jury. However, > any halfway intelligent juror will realize that if a lawsuit is brought to > trial, either an insurance company is involved or the defendant is > independently wealthy. A lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis will > not pursue a case unless he/she feels that there is a reasonable chance of > recovery. However we may wish to think of lawyers, they are not stupid. > I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two > years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, > now you've won; try now to collect." Here in Virginia, if you don't pay off a judgement fast the lawyers for the plaintiff can easily place a lien on your home, even if the home is in another state, for the amount of the judgement plus interest until the judgement is paid off. Until you pay off the judgement you will have a bad credit rating and you won't be able to sell your home. This happened to me. They put a lien on a residential building lot that I own in another state. I eventually paid off the judgement even though it was most unfair because there was no way I could prevent them from collecting. Sam Heywood -- > Roger Turk > Tucson, Arizona -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
