Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

I can understand where the woman is coming from, but it is not clear (and she gave no testimony) how the accident changed her life. Also, did she actually pay her medical bills? One would think that someone else paid (such as her car insurance). It would then be up to her car insurance company to try to recoup the expenses they incurred, not the woman. In the end, I think the jury saw this case correctly: the attorney was trying to milk the situation to get money for himself from the WMATA. If there were something more, the attorney presented little evidence of it. With the evidence presented, this case never should have gone to trial--it should have settled for a reasonable figure, and it only went to trial so the attorney could try to collect a piece of a pain and suffering award (for which again the attorney presented little evidence), and I'm sure from start to finish the victim was egged on by the attorney. I agree with the jury that the attorney should not be reward for this. Its tempting to say this case is all about the victim, but it is not--it is about the victim's attorney, who was clearly not being reasonable giving the evidence produced at trial.

by Alan on Feb 21, 2013 11:43 am • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam