DeletedUser34
Well there is a discussion in this, but I feel I must lead up to the question with some background...
Just my luck, right before I move, I get Jury Duty. So I am all about doing my civic duty, I show up I do all the waiting, and I am part of the pick group. We go into the courtroom and are sitting there doing the whole question answer episode. The case is a simple civil case where one guy is suing another guy for injuries. Now in the opening the plaintiff's attorney states that this case has been in the making for 4 years, and while the doctor bills might not be that much the gentleman suffered horribly. Now having been in an accident I was thinking to myself...oh puff and bother. But whatever. The attorney goes on to ask if we will be able to award pain and suffering. I raise my hand and say not a stupid obnoxious amount, that is robbery and an abuse of the system. They didn't like that.
A little bit later, he asks if anyone has prejudice against truck drivers or prejudice that might make it hard to hear this case. I again raise my hand and say I have a dislike against ambulance chasers. (strike 2) I sit back down.
Here is where the "discussion" comes into play. Someone asked about insurance, and we were told that insurance was not allowed to be brought up in the trial. Well my hackles when up and I stand up again and ask, how can you hear a case without allowing if there was insurance involved or not? I mean, seriously if the insurance paid out already is this guy not simply suing the defendant out of sour grapes? I get suing if there is no insurance, or the medical bills are more than the allotted insurance allowances, but to sue and say insurance has to remain a non entity is just stupid. I told the judge so. I said, I pay 400.00 for all my cars and family and they damn sure better pay for any oops'es, and I would be pissed if some greedy smuck tried to sue me after the insurance settled for more money, only to be told I would not be allowed to say to the jury, HE WAS ALREADY PAID. I looked at the judge and said, well if you put me on this jury, the plaintiff wont' get *squat* simply because I find greed disgusting, and the lawyers that perpetuate it just as disgusting. Anyway, gavel came down, I was found in contempt and fined and removed. Stupid people.
So here is my question...is if fair or right not to let insurance play a role in personal injury cases at the time of trial?
Just my luck, right before I move, I get Jury Duty. So I am all about doing my civic duty, I show up I do all the waiting, and I am part of the pick group. We go into the courtroom and are sitting there doing the whole question answer episode. The case is a simple civil case where one guy is suing another guy for injuries. Now in the opening the plaintiff's attorney states that this case has been in the making for 4 years, and while the doctor bills might not be that much the gentleman suffered horribly. Now having been in an accident I was thinking to myself...oh puff and bother. But whatever. The attorney goes on to ask if we will be able to award pain and suffering. I raise my hand and say not a stupid obnoxious amount, that is robbery and an abuse of the system. They didn't like that.
A little bit later, he asks if anyone has prejudice against truck drivers or prejudice that might make it hard to hear this case. I again raise my hand and say I have a dislike against ambulance chasers. (strike 2) I sit back down.
Here is where the "discussion" comes into play. Someone asked about insurance, and we were told that insurance was not allowed to be brought up in the trial. Well my hackles when up and I stand up again and ask, how can you hear a case without allowing if there was insurance involved or not? I mean, seriously if the insurance paid out already is this guy not simply suing the defendant out of sour grapes? I get suing if there is no insurance, or the medical bills are more than the allotted insurance allowances, but to sue and say insurance has to remain a non entity is just stupid. I told the judge so. I said, I pay 400.00 for all my cars and family and they damn sure better pay for any oops'es, and I would be pissed if some greedy smuck tried to sue me after the insurance settled for more money, only to be told I would not be allowed to say to the jury, HE WAS ALREADY PAID. I looked at the judge and said, well if you put me on this jury, the plaintiff wont' get *squat* simply because I find greed disgusting, and the lawyers that perpetuate it just as disgusting. Anyway, gavel came down, I was found in contempt and fined and removed. Stupid people.
So here is my question...is if fair or right not to let insurance play a role in personal injury cases at the time of trial?