Deliberations
We deliberated for about five hours. We were careful to make sure that everyone's views were heard and respected.
A few things we noticed during deliberations:
- the photo of the tailpipe in the bumper is less impressive close up--the bumper material appears to be made of plastic or other soft material
- the motorcycle in the photo looks undamaged (there are several bikers on the jury)
- the actual helmet is also unconvincing--all we can see is that the paint is scratched off
Burr's credibility had been so damaged during the trial that several jurors were even skeptical of the Sturgis motorcycle story. Why did the evidence include a picture of Burr at Sturgis, but none of him en route? Why were there only two receipts from the trip?
This is what we decided to award:
| Plaintiff | Defense | Jury | |
| Past lost earnings | $82,500 | $19,422 | $19,422 |
| Past medical bills | $45,360 | $45,360 | $45,360 |
| Lost future earnings | $482,384 | $0 | $20,000 |
| Future medical bills | $937,530 | $15,000 | $20,815 |
| Past pain and suffering | $500,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| Future pain and suffering | $9,000,000 | $50,000 | $25,000 |
| Loss of consortium | $1,000,000 | $17,900 | $15,000 |
| Punitive damages | $240,000 | $0 | $65,000 |
We argued over each of the numbers, but the difference between the lowest and highest number was never more than $100,000: the plaintiff had failed to convince any of us that a million-dollar settlement was justified.
On a couple of items we actually awarded less than what the defense offered--they had put on such an effective case that we thought they had left money on the table.
There was much discussion on the topic of punitive damages. The law requires "oppression, fraud, or malice." We rule out fraud or malice, but one of the definitions of "oppression" includes "despicable conduct." We agreed that drinking and driving, week after week, qualifies as despicable conduct.
We add up the numbers: it's a little over a quarter of a million dollars, and about $65,000 more than what the plaintiff offered. We all agree this seems reasonable.
Delivering the verdict
There's much talk of juries and eye contact. I wasn't able to bring myself to look at either Poe or Burr, even for journalistic purposes.
Kent asked to have the jury polled on the issue of compensatory damages. One by one, we each confirmed our decision.
For his part, Biegler apparently didn't believe that we had awarded punitive damages, and asked to have us polled on that issue.
Post-mortem
After the trial, the lawyers were eager to talk to us and get our feedback about what worked and what didn't work. In return, they shared a lot of the information that we were restricted from learning about during the trial.
The document that the plaintiff tried to introduce during the Stearns testimony was a letter from one of the treating physicians that suggested that Dr Torres might have made a mistake and overlooked a head injury.
All compensatory damages are covered by the insurance company. So Biegler was actually hired by Allstate. Punitive damages are paid by the defendant (and you can't escape them by declaring bankruptcy). That is why the plaintiff front-loaded the pain and suffering amount and minimized the punitive damages--they didn't think Poe would have the money for the punitive damages. I think the jury instruction that one may not award damages "in excess of the defendant's ability to pay" is confusing and misleading. (Biegler took advantage of this very effectively.) And the distinction between compensatory/punitive damages is a matter of law which is not specific to a particular case--it seems perverse that we're not supposed to know this.
Harold Poe served no jail time for his felony DUI conviction. He received a suspended sentence, spent six months in a drug and alcohol treatment facility, and is under strict probation for the next 5 years. He has to submit to regular blood tests to ensure he remains clean and sober. A Google search turned up:
State Bar #XXXX, San Jose (July 7, 2009).
Poe, 40, was placed on interim suspension following his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a felony. The interim suspension will remain in effect until further order by the State Bar Court.
The order took effect August 7, 2009Other than that, I can find no information on the accident or the case online.
It was an interesting read; well-written. Thanks for sharing! :)
ReplyDelete