Posted on 02/21/2005 11:59:45 AM PST by OXENinFLA
A plaintiff who turned down a "nuisance value" settlement offer from Honda in an air-bag defect case not only lost the jury verdict but has also been ordered to pay the automaker more than $500,000 in attorney fees and costs by a Nevada state court judge.
Parties faced with what they believe are meritless claims sometimes offer a nuisance-value settlement for less than they would spend seeking dismissal or defending the matter. Nevada has an "offer of judgment" statute, under which a party may offer a settlement up to 10 days before trial, with costs accrued to that point.
Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass ruled that plaintiff Vincenzo Variale was "grossly unreasonable" in rejecting Honda's settlement offer and awarded the automaker $347,793 in attorney fees and $172,360 in costs, a total of $520,153.
The case involved a July 2000 accident in Las Vegas. Variale was driving a 1992 Acura Vigor, manufactured by American Honda Motor Co., when he collided with another vehicle. Variale claimed the driver's-side air bag released a thick plume of smoke and powder and that he was trapped in the car for 20 minutes after the accident.
In his complaint against Honda, Variale said he developed a form of chemically induced asthma — reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, or RADS — as a result of breathing in the emissions from the air bag.
Variale also claimed vocal cord dysfunction, sleep apnea and depression, and that he lost his $150,000-per-year job because he was unable to travel for work.
Before trial, Variale — who was seeking $2.2 million in damages — refused Honda's nuisance-value offer, and the case went ahead without further settlement negotiations.
The plaintiff's expert witnesses included his treating physicians Drs. Lawrence Copeland, Paul Stewart, Aksay Sood and Syed Akbarullah, all from Las Vegas.
Variale also presented testimony from physicians at the National Jewish Medical Center in Denver: Drs. Robert Bethel, Todd Kingdom and Craig Glazer.
Gary Bakken, a warnings expert from Tucson, Ariz.; and Terrence Claurettie, a Las Vegas economist, also testified for the plaintiff.
Honda contended that the air bag released harmless nitrogen gas and talcum powder, and there were no confirmed instances of persons developing RADS from an air bag deployment. The automaker also said many clinical criteria for diagnosing RADS depend on subjective patient complaints and tests that can be influenced by patient effort.
The company called five expert witnesses: Honda engineer Mary Christopherson, on air bag design and safety; Chris Erickson of Autoliv Inc., on air bag effluent chemistry; Neal Langerman, on chemical-hazard warnings; and Las Vegas pulmonologists Drs. Mindy Shapiro and Stuart Brooks.
The jury took less than an hour Dec. 6, 2004, to return a unanimous verdict for the defense.
ping
Our 'justice system' works both ways.
A true loser. He should have shot his lawyer. He'd have room and board for life, but at least he wouldn't have to put up with bill collectors. And he would have been a local hero in the jail. "What're you in for?" - "Oh, I shot my lawyer." - Instant respect.
That's a very reasonable solution.
Canada has loser-pays but it is neither blanket nor automatic. When the defence prevails in a lawsuit here, they have to ask for costs after the verdict has been rendered. The amount awarded, if any, is entirely at the judge's discretion.
HEHEHEHE MY thought also.
It didnt kill the SOB so it couldnt have been too grave a harm.
When you have a wife and three teen-agers, you're lucky if your 5th car is a Honda rather than a Yugo.
Not on this. A lawyer cannot control what settlement value a client puts on a case, other than to quit the case. Had it been for sanctions for a frivolous suit, the lawyer might be on the hook, but even that is doubtful because he had physicians who were in a better position to know and signed on. Too bad, IMO, because this junk science stuff has ruined products law. The trial bar will have to sit up and take notice of this one.
FWIW, the Offer of Judgment is a wonderful tool that should be used far more often. I use it more than most, though I never get costs awarded. It is more just a machanism to transfer risk to the Plaintiff. It helps a lot in settlement.
Fair solution BUMP!
Hallelujah!!!!
I don't think loser pays is the answer. Litigation is always a crapshoot, and even when one has justice on one's side there is no guarantee the verdict will go the right way. Who will dare bring a legitimate claim against any well heeled defendant if the loss of the case means potential financial ruin for the plaintiff?
Whereas these idiotic and parasitic "class action" suits brought by entrepreneuerial lawyers in search of a payday really are a plague on society, and bring no justice even in those cases where the plaintiffs plaintiffs prevail. They win their coupon for a free cup of coffee from McDonald's and the lawyers split millions in contingency fees.
This should happen to every losing plaintiff. It would solve the lawsuit problem overnight.
So the plaintiff shouldn't have anything at risk, but it's okay for the defendant to have his livelihood on the line? Nice sense of fairness you've got there.
The defendant will always offer a settlement in any reasonable case—any business has something to lose and thus will act to minimize risk by settling. The only plaintiffs who get punished by an automatic "loser pays" rule are those who have frivolous cases, or those who obstinately pursue the lottery payout rather than settle for reasonable compensation for actual damages. Those people deserve to be punished. Loser pays is the only way to go.
2004 Political Campaign Contributions from Las Vegas, Nevada 89144:Name: Variale, Vincenzo
Occupation: Universal Health Services/Controlle
Amount: $ 250
Date: 08/25/2003
Contributed to: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS PAC (FEDPAC); (FKA AMERICAN HEALTH SYSTEMS PAC) - Unknown
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.