Opening Statements Begin In Gratton Lawsuit Trial
#23
Registered
Platinum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: East Texas Waterfront- running errands if anyone asks
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Wrongful death will be hard to prove in this case. This should help us all understand the legal burden of the family. Best wishes for them all.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ivil-case.html
Once a lawsuit is filed, the Plaintiff still must prove the various elements of a wrongful death claim before any damages can be awarded.
In other words, the Plaintiff must show the court that the Defendant was negligent, and that the Defendant’s negligence caused the deceased’s death, before the court will order the Defendant to pay any damages.
Typically, the Plaintiff must prove the following elements of a wrongful death case:
Duty of Care – The Plaintiff must prove to the court that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased person. For example, in the case of a car accident, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant had an obligation to obey the Rules of the Road and drive carefully while operating any vehicle
Breach of Duty of Care – The Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant breached the duty of care owed to the Defendant. Again, if the situation involves a car accident, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant failed to obey the applicable traffic laws, such as by speeding or by running a red light; and
Causation – It is not sufficient that the Plaintiff merely show that the Defendant broke the law in some manner, or breached a duty in some other way. The Plaintiff must also show that Defendant’s particular action directly caused the wrongful death. So, even if the Defendant ran a red light while driving a car, the Defendant is not responsible for the deceased’s death if the death was caused by something else, such as a mechanical failure on the deceased’s vehicle.
The Burden of Proof in a Wrongful Death Case
In proving each of the above elements, the Plaintiff must meet the "burden of proof."
While the laws in each state may describe the Burden of Proof differently, each state generally requires the Plaintiff to prove the elements of negligence by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
Some states instruct juries to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that the Defendant caused the deceased’s death. The Burden of Proof in a civil case is much lower than in a criminal case, where the typical standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt."
The Burden of Proof is not a measure of the quantity of evidence that the Plaintiff presents. For example, just because the Plaintiff presents more witnesses at trial than the Defendant, that doesn't mean the Plaintiff has met the Burden of Proof. Rather, the quality and credibility of the evidence is measured. If the Plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof on any of the elements of negligence, the Plaintiff will not recover any damages.
While many lawsuits are resolved by pre-trial settlement agreements, many cases can only be resolved by going to trial. Depending on the state where the case is being heard, a judge or a jury will decide whether the Plaintiff has met the Burden of Proof on the evidentiary issues. Most states do not require that the jury reach a unanimous verdict, but the rules governing jury deliberations do vary from state to state.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ivil-case.html
Once a lawsuit is filed, the Plaintiff still must prove the various elements of a wrongful death claim before any damages can be awarded.
In other words, the Plaintiff must show the court that the Defendant was negligent, and that the Defendant’s negligence caused the deceased’s death, before the court will order the Defendant to pay any damages.
Typically, the Plaintiff must prove the following elements of a wrongful death case:
Duty of Care – The Plaintiff must prove to the court that the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased person. For example, in the case of a car accident, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant had an obligation to obey the Rules of the Road and drive carefully while operating any vehicle
Breach of Duty of Care – The Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant breached the duty of care owed to the Defendant. Again, if the situation involves a car accident, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant failed to obey the applicable traffic laws, such as by speeding or by running a red light; and
Causation – It is not sufficient that the Plaintiff merely show that the Defendant broke the law in some manner, or breached a duty in some other way. The Plaintiff must also show that Defendant’s particular action directly caused the wrongful death. So, even if the Defendant ran a red light while driving a car, the Defendant is not responsible for the deceased’s death if the death was caused by something else, such as a mechanical failure on the deceased’s vehicle.
The Burden of Proof in a Wrongful Death Case
In proving each of the above elements, the Plaintiff must meet the "burden of proof."
While the laws in each state may describe the Burden of Proof differently, each state generally requires the Plaintiff to prove the elements of negligence by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
Some states instruct juries to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that the Defendant caused the deceased’s death. The Burden of Proof in a civil case is much lower than in a criminal case, where the typical standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt."
The Burden of Proof is not a measure of the quantity of evidence that the Plaintiff presents. For example, just because the Plaintiff presents more witnesses at trial than the Defendant, that doesn't mean the Plaintiff has met the Burden of Proof. Rather, the quality and credibility of the evidence is measured. If the Plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof on any of the elements of negligence, the Plaintiff will not recover any damages.
While many lawsuits are resolved by pre-trial settlement agreements, many cases can only be resolved by going to trial. Depending on the state where the case is being heard, a judge or a jury will decide whether the Plaintiff has met the Burden of Proof on the evidentiary issues. Most states do not require that the jury reach a unanimous verdict, but the rules governing jury deliberations do vary from state to state.
Last edited by Flightplan; 01-14-2015 at 12:16 PM. Reason: Added structure
#24
Think about that before you answer, and make sure u have your facts straight. Sure you wouldnt want to slander someone that you dont know or truly know NOTHING about the case in a public form....be best to say its your opinion.
Last edited by Xtremeracing; 01-14-2015 at 12:18 PM.
#26
Registered
iTrader: (1)
I would rather have my life in the hands of a fellow racer than "Mike the tattoo artist"........the racer has sat in your seat, knows how to get the lid/hatch open from the inside and/or the outside and certainly understands the "time is crucial" concept on an upside down boat filling with water......
#27
You know for a fact that Mike has NO type of training?
Think about that before you answer, and make sure u have your facts straight. Sure you wouldnt want to slander someone that you dont know or truly know NOTHING about the case in a public form....be best to say its your opinion.
Think about that before you answer, and make sure u have your facts straight. Sure you wouldnt want to slander someone that you dont know or truly know NOTHING about the case in a public form....be best to say its your opinion.
I am so confused now, you said below that you would rather have your life in the hands of a fellow untrained in rescue racer than "Mike the tattoo artist" How do you know that he isnt the best trained diver on staff? What you read was the plaintiffs complaint which has to be proven in a court of law..
Ok Matlock........for a plantiff's attorney to use the line in his opening statement would clearly indicate that there has been some research on the matter. This is entered into the court record, not water cooler hearsay. Also note slander is verbal character assault, libel would be doing in writing or on a forum.
I get that you and the other racers are passionate about the sport and maybe you and Mike are best buddies but if Carbonell is staffing rescue boats with less than qualified people then he is going to have to answer to the jury and their awards.
#28
Would you expect the insurance company to try an renege on payment if Carbonell is found to hire unqualified personnel? If you hire an unlicensed driver to drive your car then they would attempt to renege on paying any claim. Because it is a significant dollar amount involved you know the insurance company would want to take evasive action on paying.
#29
Mike was the strongest SWIMMER on the scene and had the best chance other then Steve Page to get Joey out. Once he was out the DOCTOR on the rescue boat where there to do there thing. You make it sound like it was all Mike, but the truth is there was numerous Doctors and medical rescue on scene. Different people different jobs. You are so off base its almost funny.
Find it also concerning you havent mentioned this all could of been avoided if Steve would of stay with his team mate. In their situation they didnt not have a canopy failure so Steve should of have had plenty of time to get Joey to saftey ....IN MY OPION
Find it also concerning you havent mentioned this all could of been avoided if Steve would of stay with his team mate. In their situation they didnt not have a canopy failure so Steve should of have had plenty of time to get Joey to saftey ....IN MY OPION
#30
[QU OTE=Jupiter Sunsation;4249538]Would you expect the insurance company to try an renege on payment if Carbonell is found to hire unqualified personnel? If you hire an unlicensed driver to drive your car then they would attempt to renege on paying any claim. Because it is a significant dollar amount involved you know the insurance company would want to take evasive action on paying.[/QUOTE]
Insurance co did a investigation same as Coast Guard and feel pretty comfortable, or else they would of settled out of court witch they have had numerous opportunity to do
Insurance co did a investigation same as Coast Guard and feel pretty comfortable, or else they would of settled out of court witch they have had numerous opportunity to do