#61  
Old 02-26-2014, 10:23 AM
Grungedude42's Avatar
Grungedude42 Grungedude42 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Years Playing: 14.2
Courses Played: 27
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,615
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000ZME86U
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-26-2014, 11:43 AM
joecoin's Avatar
joecoin joecoin is online now
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North Central Ohio
Years Playing: 1.1
Courses Played: 29
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 580
Her attorney was on TV.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1754111
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-26-2014, 04:40 PM
DG_player DG_player is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradharris View Post
The judge also has the power to change the amount of the award in either direction. The stated amount is really an asking price. Things like medical and legal bills are easy to quantify, but pain and suffering is up to some interpretation.

The city will also deflect some percentage of the blame which reduces how much it pays. The jury will be asked to assign a percentage of blame to each involved party. So lets say the find the city liable, but find the player 25% liable and the disc manufacturer 5% liable. The city will then be required to pay 70% of the financial award.

A separate lawsuit would then have to be filed against the other parties and another jury would have to find them at least 50% liable for them to have to pay anything.

*Note: this is all based on my experiences as a juror on a lawsuit in NH. There may be some differences in CA.
Not certain for sure on CA, but the vast majority of states have "joint & several liability". This doesn't work well for the park. If one of the defendants is unable to pay it's share of the damages, the other defendants are responsible to pay all of it as long as they are found to be partially liable. Assuming the chucker has no money or assets of note, the park will get stuck footing the whole bill.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-26-2014, 05:07 PM
Sean Johnson's Avatar
Sean Johnson Sean Johnson is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Years Playing: 6
Courses Played: 22
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 623
Pure Comparative Fault-
Thirteen states recognize the Pure Comparative Fault Rule, which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party’s degree of fault. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.


Pulled from: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/na.../05/235755.htm

Within the article, there is a link to a slick document that breaks it down by state:

"The term “comparative fault” refers to a system of apportioning damages between negligent parties based on their proportionate shares of fault. Under a comparative fault system, a plaintiff’s negligence will not bar recovery in states that employ the harsh Pure Contributory Negligence Rule, but it will reduce the amount

of damages the plaintiff can recover based on the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. The Pure Comparative Fault Rule allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99% at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party’s degree of fault. The pure comparative fault system has been criticized for allowing a plaintiff who is primarily at fault to recover from a lesser-at-fault defendant some portion of its damages.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-26-2014, 05:11 PM
Sean Johnson's Avatar
Sean Johnson Sean Johnson is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Years Playing: 6
Courses Played: 22
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 623
And a link from the same site takes you to another doc that details the following:

"CA - Modified Joint and Several Liability
Joint and several liability for economic damages on negligence claims, otherwise several liability for non-economic damages. Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1431."


Is called “partial equitable indemnity.” Good faith settlement finding bars contribution against settling tortfeasor and provides an offset in the amount of the settlement to the subsequent liability of non-settlors. A settling defendant can recover equitable indemnity from a non-settling defendant to the extent the settling defendant has discharged a liability that the non-settling defendant should be responsible to pay. The right of contribution can be enforced in a separate lawsuit. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 53 Cal. App.3d 693, 126 Cal. Rptr. 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:11 AM
JeremyKShort's Avatar
JeremyKShort JeremyKShort is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cleburne, TX
Years Playing: 2.6
Courses Played: 49
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Johnson View Post
And a link from the same site takes you to another doc that details the following:



"CA - Modified Joint and Several Liability

Joint and several liability for economic damages on negligence claims, otherwise several liability for non-economic damages. Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1431."




Is called “partial equitable indemnity.” Good faith settlement finding bars contribution against settling tortfeasor and provides an offset in the amount of the settlement to the subsequent liability of non-settlors. A settling defendant can recover equitable indemnity from a non-settling defendant to the extent the settling defendant has discharged a liability that the non-settling defendant should be responsible to pay. The right of contribution can be enforced in a separate lawsuit. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 53 Cal. App.3d 693, 126 Cal. Rptr. 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).

Whaaaa... Big words. Mah brane herts........
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:16 AM
Aim For The Chains's Avatar
Aim For The Chains Aim For The Chains is offline
Plastic Counselor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MINNESOTA
Years Playing: 6.1
Courses Played: 103
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 5,873
California has its own rules for everything. seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:20 AM
whitefedora's Avatar
whitefedora whitefedora is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: pittsburgh, pa
Years Playing: 5.8
Courses Played: 46
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 596
Even the laws on yielding there are different, lol
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:29 AM
ian.'s Avatar
ian. ian. is online now
*Legalize It*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Clemson, SC
Years Playing: 5.1
Courses Played: 36
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,598
ugghhh
Reply With Quote
 

  #70  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:35 PM
Norcal's Avatar
Norcal Norcal is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: northern California
Years Playing: 17.8
Courses Played: 56
Posts: 235
In order to recover against the City at trial, the injured woman will have to prove a "dangerous condition of public property" (Cal. Govt. Code section 835) which includes the following elements:

1. That the City owned or Controlled the property; and

2. That the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident; and

3. That the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of incident that occurred; and

4. that the city had notice of the dangerous condition long enough to have protected against it.

Based on the follow-up video, it sounds like the City will argue that it had no notice based on the lack of a significant accident history.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.