Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

Very interesting piece. The topic of the composition of DC juries is fascinating, and has as much to do with DC's failure to impose any sanctions for failing to comply with a jury summons as the changing demographics in the city. (As an aside, Ken, set your calendar - in January 2015, you'll be getting another jury summons.)

I obviously didn't hear the testimony, but these two sentences in the recap stood out to me:

I could have supported a larger award, as it made little sense to me to find medical costs reasonable but assign no value to the pain for which those medical costs were incurred.

and

She lived a quiet life for the next 20 years, in near-constant pain. She is on daily narcotics to this day to manage her pain, which she places at a 9 on a scale of 1-10.

It seems as if Ms. Lee was in constant, significant pain before the 2010 accident. In addition, apparently there was no physical evidence of additional damage caused by the 2010 accident, and no testimony that she was in additional pain post 2010. If that's the case, there doesn't seem like there was a basis for an award for pain and suffering.

Even if she did testify that she was in additional pain after the accident, the jury is obligated to make a credibility determination (since pain cannot be objectively measured) regarding her testimony. It appears that the other seven jurors may have found any testimony of additional pain not credible, based on the minor nature of the accident, and the Washingotn Hospital Center examination. I'm curious, Ken, if this was discussed, and if so, why you came out differently than the other jury members.

by dcd on Feb 21, 2013 12:51 pm • 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