decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
clarification? | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
clarification?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT
When discussions started the Majority of the Jury was for no fault at all on the
truck drivers part after all his vehicle did not swerve in front of her. It was
a normal lane change. But the Jury Foreman convinced everyone That it was a big
company that could afford to pay, That no one knew what might show up in the
future that was a result of this wreck. An ambulance did transport the lady to
the hospital, but she was released less than 40 minutes after she arrived at the
hospital. Her only witness was a chiropractor who could not testify to any
specific injury, but general "soft tissue damages can occur"
They did not need my vote in a civil trial. So my opinion was out voted. There
were lots of nurses and doctors in the jury pool that the lady's attorney used
their challenges to eliminate, leave me on as an engineer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • clarification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT
    • clarification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
  • Thank you. - Authored by: mcinsand on Monday, September 24 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )