Online Jury Case

You Be The Judge

The below recited case is an actual pending case. The names have been changed to protect the privacy of the parties. To participate in our online jury carefully read the facts and arguments below and then render your verdict and answer the questions at the end of the case. Each week one of our online jurors will receive a $100 gift certificate, randomly selected. We purposely withhold information as to which party we represent in order to reduce the possibility that your verdict will be influenced in any way. Thank you for participating.

General Statement of Facts

This case stems from a two vehicle accident which took place on a rural road on January 30th, 2004. One of the vehicles was an 18-wheeler, tractor trailer, being driven by “Edward” on behalf of a trucking company, “Transport Trucking”. The other vehicle was a pickup truck being driven by “Mike”. Mike was on his way to get the oil changed in his vehicle. Behind him, in another vehicle, was his wife ”Sherrie”, who was following Mike in order to get the oil changed in her vehicle as well. Mike and Sherrie were traveling south on Rural Road #1. Edward was on Rural Road #2 heading east. At the point where Rural Road #2 intersects with Rural Road #1 there is a stop sign directing eastbound traffic to stop. However, Edward failed to stop at that intersection and his tractor trailer collided with the passenger side of Mike’s pickup. Mike’s pickup came to rest in the ditch on the southeast corner of the intersection. Sherrie was a short distance behind the collision and saw her husband’s vehicle get struck. She immediately knew he was not likely to survive the crash, and went into shock. Indeed, as a result of the collision Mike suffered tremendous injuries. He was transported to a hospital where he survived for 32 days, eventually perishing from his injuries on March 3, 2004.

The Plaintiffs in this case are Mike’s estate and Sherrie. The defendants are Edward and Transport Trucking. The defendants are admitting liability. In other words, they agree that Edward’s actions in failing to stop at the stop sign were negligent and caused the injuries and death of Mike. The issue in controversy is the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiffs. In other words, what amount of money should be given to the plaintiffs in order to reasonably compensate them for Mike's injuries and death?

Arguments on Damage issues

The Plaintiffs are asserting two separate actions as a result of this accident. The first is what is commonly known as a “Wrongful Death” claim. The second action asserted in this case is Sherrie’s claim to have suffered emotional distress as a result of having witnessed the collision that ultimately took Mike’s life. The “Wrongful Death” claim attempts to recover damages to compensate Mike’s Estate and Sherrie for the injuries he sustained and his death. It includes consideration for each of the following items. There are some aspects of damages where there is very little argument and others where the parties differ a great deal.

1. The reasonable value of necessary hospital charges, doctor charges, and other medical services from the date of the injury to the time of Mike’s death. The parties agree that the reasonable medical expenses for Mike’s medical treatment prior to his death amount to $161, 197.26.



2. Physical and mental pain and suffering from the date of injury to the date of Mike’s death. The parties agree that apart from the initial collision, and perhaps brief and infrequent glimpses of cognition, Mike was comatose during most of his hospital stay and likely did not suffer pain while in that condition. Sherrie’s testimony will indicate her belief that at times in the hospital Mike’s facial expressions did indicate discomfort, that on occasions he opened his eyes and his eye movements followed her, and that she and other of Mike’s visitors believe that Mike did suffer at times. Therefore, Plaintiffs will ask for some amount of money to compensate for Mike’s pain and suffering before his death. The defendants will argue that he was comatose during his entire hospital stay. Therefore, little, if any, money should be awarded to compensate for pain and suffering.



3. Loss of function of the mind and/or body from the date of injury to the date of Mike’s death. Clearly, Mike’s body and mind were unable to function properly during the 32 days he was hospitalized prior to his death. The parties agree with this fact, but differ as to how to properly compensate for that.



4. The present value of the additional amount that Mike would reasonably be expected to have accumulated as a result of his own effort if he had lived the term of his natural life. AND The present value of financial support which Mike would have contributed to his spouse (Sherrie) but for his death. Damages for financial support are limited in time to the shorter of Sherrie’s or Mike’s normal life expectancy. Both parties will present testimony from economists as to what the present value is for the economic losses that Sherrie and Mike’s estate have suffered as a result of Mike's death. The plaintiffs’ economist has estimated the total loss at $807,647. The defendants’ economist has estimated the total loss at somewhere between $474,672 and $493,427. Both economists criticize each others methods for arriving at their respective figures. Each economist must make certain assumptions to arrive at their conclusions.



5. The present value of services which Mike would have performed for Sherrie but for his death. This is also known as loss of spousal consortium. “Spousal Consortium” is the fellowship of a husband and wife and the right of each to the benefits of company, cooperation, affection, the aid of the other in every marital relationship, general usefulness, industry and attention within the home and family. It does not include the loss of financial support from the injured spouse, nor mental anguish caused by the spouse’s death. Damages for spousal consortium are limited in time to the shorter of Sherrie’s or Mike’s normal life expectancy. The evidence will show that Mike and Sherrie met in 1979. They married in 1982. They remained married for 22 years until Mike’s death. They had no children. However, they were considering adoption prior to Mike’s death. Mike was a very industrious worker. But, when he wasn’t working Mike and Sherrie spent most of their time together. Prior to his death Mike was in very good health and was very physically fit. For recreation the two of them enjoyed camping, fishing, hunting, bike riding and working out. They both loved football and took many weekend trips to watch professional and college football games. They also enjoyed car shows, movies and dining out together. They loved to go for long drives when there was nothing else to do. They were a very loving and affectionate couple and were very sexually active prior to Mike’s death, engaging in intimate relations an average of two to three times per week. Even though he was a hard worker and provider, Mike did more than his share around the house as well. He helped out at the house in order to provide he and Sherrie with more time to enjoy other activities. He was responsible for mowing the grass and taking care of the yard. In the winter he shoveled the snow. He took out the trash and helped with the dishes. He helped with the general house cleaning, including vacuuming and dusting the furniture. He fed their three dogs. He was also responsible for the general maintenance and repairs to the house, including painting and replacement of furnace filters, etc. The parties disagree as to how to properly compensate Sherrie for the loss of “Spousal Consortium”.



6. Sherrie’s Emotional Distress at having Witnessed the Accident. The evidence will show that Sherrie saw the collision between the tractor-trailer and Mike’s pickup truck. As soon as it occurred she sat, dumbfounded, in her car. She called 911. The other driver, Edward, approached her (not knowing she was Mike’s wife) and told her he had just hit someone, but that the person was still breathing. Sherrie was in shock and could not bring herself to go to the truck. She drove to a house nearby where she knew a “first responder” lived. She told that person, “Nancy”, what happened. Nancy took Sherrie’s car to go to the scene of the accident and left Sherrie in the care of her son. However, Sherrie inexplicably wandered off and ended up walking home despite freezing temperatures. On the way she called her sister, Lori, who left work and came to Sherrie’s home. Eventually, they made their way to the hospital. On the way Sherrie went from feeling numb and disconnected to experiencing a panic attack. She hyperventilated and was extremely overwhelmed. At the hospital Sherrie remained awake for more than three days at her husband’s side, did not eat, and cried profusely. Mike was in a coma for three weeks, breathing through a ventilator. Sherrie had to make the decision to remove the ventilator. He became septic and eventually died after much difficulty breathing and experiencing apparent seizures. Sherrie was overwhelmed and had to care for Mike’s ailing mother while making funeral arrangements. Sherrie has been seen by a psychologist relative to the mental distress she has been experiencing having had to watch the accident that took her husband’s life. She has had recurring nightmares about the accident. She has been diagnosed with major depression and anxiety disorder. Her doctor has suggested that she would benefit from therapy, medication and enrollment in a support group for grieving spouses. The parties disagree as to what amount, if any, is appropriate to award for damages.