A horrible nightmare has come true. During a casual
Sunday afternoon trail ride, your friend fell off your horse.
Now, several months later, he is suing you. You know you have
powerful defenses. The horse he fell from -- your elderly and
practically "bomb-proof" gelding -- barely moves and
has never thrown a rider. You distinctly recall hearing your friend
say that he lost his balance as he reached to pick an apple while
the horse stood grazing. He also told you that he was "100%
OK" after he fell. Since the incident, your friend never
missed a day of work, has no scars, and his life seems no different
than it was before he rode your horse.
Let's evaluate two possible responses to the lawsuit:.
[1] If your liability insurance policy covered the
incident, let's assume that your insurance company plays to pay
your friend a very small amount of money to settle the case; or
[2] If no insurance covers you, but you hired a lawyer on your
own, let's assume that the lawyer recommends that you save the
expense of defending the case and instead pay your friend a small
sum to settle the case.
Many people believe that settlements under these and
similar circumstances are inappropriate. Why would your lawyer
or insurance company suggest a settlement, even if you have valid
defenses and may win the case? This article explores some reasons
that this author, an experiences trial lawyer, has encountered:
The High Cost of Defending a Lawsuit
Litigation (a term describing the process
of taking a case through the court system) can be very expensive.
It is extremely difficult to control litigation costs. Attorneys
representing plaintiffs (the ones who sue) usually derive their
fee from a portion of the money the plaintiff recovers, and they
usually waive legal fees if the plaintiff loses; this is commonly
known as a "contingency fee arrangement."
Defense attorneys, by comparison, do not operate on
a contingency fee arrangement. Consequently, the obligation of
you or your insurance company to pay the costs of a legal defense
remains the same whether you win or lose the case.
The Loser Rarely Pays
"I'll win the case, and then the losing party will pay my
lawyer's bill," you might think. Is that likely? Generally,
no. Having the loser pay the winner very rarely occurs in the
United States legal system, but this might occur if (1) the judge
in your case made a specific finding that the losing party's case
or defense was frivolous and wants to penalize the loser
by having some or all of the winner's legal fees reimbursed; (2)
a contract required one party to pay another (some liability releases
may contain these provisions); (3) a law on the books requires
the loser to pay the winner in a dispute (such a law is unlikely
in this personal injury scenario, but check the laws of your state);
or (4) a court rule allows the winning party to be reimbursed.
As a practical matter, courts are hesitant to order one party
to pay another's legal fees.
The Unpredictability of Jury Verdicts
The jury system has received intense criticism in the 1990's.
People have blamed juries for not paying attention to the evidence,
for injecting their own prejudices into a verdict, for not being
representative of the general public since some people are exempt
from jury duty, for forgetting major and pivotal events during
a trial, and many other things. Therefore, regardless of whether
you are the plaintiff or the defendant, any trial can be a gamble
because the outcome is never certain.
Avoid Possible Bad Precedent
What if you won your case at trial but the other side is appealing
the case to a higher court? At this stage, it would seem outlandish
to settle the case when it seems you are ahead. However, parties
sometimes settle cases simply because of the possibility that
an appellate court could issue an adverse decision that would
create a bad precedent (guiding authority) for people like you
in future cases. The motivation to settle under these circumstances
depends, in large part, on the importance of the issues that will
likely be decided on appeal, the present state of the law, how
the trial proceeded, the chance that the appellate court can be
persuaded to rule favorably, and the likely cost of the appeal.
The Complexity of the Lawsuit Compared to the Amount
Demanded
What if the plaintiff is demanding a small
amount to settle the case, but defeating the case would require
spending several times more than the amount to defend? These circumstances
might, in the interests of economics alone, dictate that you save
the time, trouble, and money through a settlement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, please keep these concepts in mind:
- If you have liability insurance, read your policy
carefully. A small number of insurance policies specify that
the company must receive your approval before settling a claim
or a lawsuit within your policy limits. Insurance policies typically
give the insurance company ultimate authority to settle a claim
brought against you, within policy limits.
- Consider getting involved in the defense of your
case. Possibly, your own lawyer might have originated the notion
of settlement. He or she simply may not understand horses and
might have difficulty in grasping the issues, evaluating the
strengths and weaknesses of your case, or locating expert witnesses
to support your defenses. This lack of knowledge might prompt
the lawyer to believe that your case is weaker than it could
actually be.
As someone who understands horses, you can be a valuable
source of information to your lawyer. You might be well-situated
to help the attorney find useful and authoritative articles,
books, consultants, and expert witnesses.
- This article is not intended to constitute legal
advise. When matters arise based on specific situations, direct
your questions to a knowledgeable attorney.
About the Author
Julie I. Fershtman, Esq.
Fink, Zausmer & Kaufman, P.C.
31700 Middlebelt, Suite 150
Farmington Hills, MI 48334-2374
(248) 851-4111
E-MAIL: Fershtman@aol.com
|