Menu
Lawyers get a bad rap. There are probably more jokes about unethical lawyers than there are about any other profession. The funniest part is that, unlike most other professions, lawyers are bound by a code of ethics. A violation of the rules of professional conduct can result in the attorney getting disbarred.
In a society based on rules and regulations, lawyers and, more specifically, trial lawyers play a critical role in keeping society functioning. Trial lawyers protect people, hold greedy corporations accountable, and shed light on grave injustices.
Here are 10 ways trial lawyers helped make the world a safer place:
1. TAKATA AIRBAG RECALL
Takata airbags containing a deadly design defect with the airbag inflator were installed in approximately 67 million vehicles. Studies show that airbags with this flaw were prone to exploding due to long-term exposure to high heat and humidity. Through litigation, it was revealed that the company knew about the issue for years before a recall issue.
Trial lawyers not only obtained hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of victims injured or killed by the airbags, but they also helped to initiate one of the largest auto parts recalls in American history. The recall has likely saved thousands of people from serious injury or death.
2. FEN-PHEN LAWSUIT
An estimated 6 million people took the American Home Products Corporation diet pill “Fen-Phen.” The drug was marked as a miracle pill for obesity. By September 1997, the drug was pulled from the market after studies showed a link between the use of the diet pill and heart valve damage.
Litigation against the makers of the drug eventually resulted in a $3.75 billion settlement, one of the largest of its kind. Thousands of people received compensation for their Fen-Phen- related injuries because of the work of trial lawyers.
3. FORD-FIRESTONE UNSAFE TIRES
Over 200 deaths have been linked to Firestone tires that were installed on Ford vehicles. Product liability lawsuits as early as the 1990s produced evidence showing that the tread would separate on factory-installed Firestone tires on Ford Explorers. The tire failure made the Explorer more likely to roll over, resulting in injury and death. The lawsuits not only helped to prompt awareness about the dangerous defect but also led to multiple congressional hearings and a lifesaving recall of the tires.
4. ENRON WORKERS/RETIREMENT MONEY SETTLEMENT
When the Enron Corporation declared bankruptcy in 2001, tens of thousands of employees were left in financial ruin, devastated by the sudden, unexpected collapse of the company. Little did they know that the company’s downfall, a company once hailed for its innovation, was of its own doing.
A class-action lawsuit helped to recover hundreds of millions for employees that lost their retirement plan overnight. The suit resulted in the “largest settlement in a 401(k) case involving company stock,” according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.
5. CHEVROLET CORVAIR CAR
The Chevrolet Corvair was originally touted for its innovative, compact design. One of the most distinct features was that the luggage compartment was located in the front of the vehicle, not at the rear.
The rear-engine design is believed to have made the vehicle less stable, more susceptible to rollover or loss of control. The car stopped being produced after 1969 and was formally recalled due to the potential for a carbon monoxide leak from its heater.
6. 3-WHEEL ATV LAWSUIT
Trial lawyers helped to get dangerous and deadly three-wheel ATVs banned from the market. The unsteady vehicles (Honda three-wheel ATCs) were responsible for over 300,000 injuries and 1,000 deaths in the 1980s. Litigation proved that the vehicles contained a design defect and helped individuals and their families who were injured or killed by the vehicles recover millions.
7. POLYBUTYLENE PIPE LAWSUITS
A 1995 class-action lawsuit resulted in a $950 million settlement against Shell Oil Co. for faulty polybutylene plastic plumbing. The company, one of three, developed and produced pipes that were prone to leakage or would burst over time. Additional class action lawsuits have since been filed to help homeowners who have sustained substantial damage
8. DALKON SHIELD CONTRACEPTIVE
The Dalkon Shield was an intrauterine device (IUD). The contraceptive was hailed as a safe alternative to birth control pills in the early 1970s. Not long after emerging on the market, researchers began to see links between the device and severe infection, infertility, and pelvic inflammatory disease. Trial lawyers were able to prove that the device was unsafe and multi-million dollar verdicts on behalf of those injured by the device.
9. FORD PINTO GAS TANK LAWSUIT
The Center for Auto Safety noted that 1.5 million Ford Pintos were recalled due to a fuel tank design defect, which made them prone to catching fire if involved in a rear-end collision. At the time, a lawsuit against the company resulted in a verdict with the largest punitive damages ever awarded by a California jury.
10. POST 9/11 LITIGATION
The events of 9/11 forever shook our country. Countless lives were lost or affected by the devastating attacks. Post 9/11 litigation helped to secure compensation for those that lost loved ones, suffered injuries, or had property damage as a result of the terrorists.
Trial lawyers work tirelessly for those injured as a result of another person’s negligence. They are dedicated, compassionate individuals who focus on bringing justice and equity to people who may otherwise not be heard.
Certainly, not all trial lawyers are above the fray, but for the vast majority, arguing in court is merely scratching the surface of what they do and how they can help.
Scott Callahan is a Texas trial lawyer who specializes in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. He is board-certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Located in Katy, TX, Scott represents clients throughout Texas and nationwide. Learn more on Scott Callahan’s profile.
These Hilarious Courtroom Blunders Are Sure to Make You Laugh
Lawyers are not necessarily known for their comedy routines but, once in a while, a perfectly posed question brings a pause in the courtroom.
Court reporters capture every moment, the good, the bad, and the embarrassing.
The book Disorder in the Court has a compilation of these exchanges between lawyers, witnesses, and judges. The banter is too good to be left on the courtroom editing floor and has provided much amusement for the legal community.
Here are a few of our favorites:
No. 1
LAWYER: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
LAWYER: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
No. 2
LAWYER: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.
No. 3
LAWYER: What gear were you in at the moment of impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
No. 4
LAWYER: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
No. 5
LAWYER: Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?
WITNESS: The victim lived.
No. 6
LAWYER: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
LAWYER: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
No. 7
LAWYER: Now sir, I’m sure you are an intelligent and honest man —
WITNESS: Thank you. If I weren’t under oath, I’d return the compliment.
No. 8
LAWYER: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
No. 9
LAWYER: All your responses must be oral, ok? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral…
No. 10
LAWYER: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?
No. 11
LAWYER: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
LAWYER: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town, I’m going with a male.
No. 12
LAWYER: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
LAWYER: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
LAWYER: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
Let’s face it. Most people’s stomachs turn when they see a jury summons arrive in the mail. Common sentiments include: Can I get it postponed? How can I get out of it? Maybe I’ll just say something crazy or be really quiet so I don’t get picked.
Lawyers and judges know that jury duty can be frustrating. As a trial lawyer, I’ve heard it all and I completely understand. You have to miss work. Juror pay is not enough. You have to fill out information cards asking personal questions. And if you actually get picked to serve on the jury, it is possible to find yourself at the courthouse for days, weeks, or in rare circumstances, even months.
I can tell you from firsthand experience, though, that the people who actually serve on juries change their minds in the end. I often hear how glad jurors were to have served and how important, educational, and invaluable their experience proved.
Jurors develop a unique bond with one another during a trial. They become a tribe. In a criminal trial, jurors together have the power to decide if another human being should go to jail, and even the power to decide life or death. In a civil trial, they have the power to determine liability and award money damages.
In this column, I’m focusing on civil cases, which usually involve disputes between individuals and/or organizations. A civil lawsuit can be filed by or against an individual, business, or government.
In a civil suit, jurors aren’t told certain things because the law prevents it. As lawyers, if we divulge these basic facts, we run the risk of sanctions, a mistrial, or having the jury’s decision reversed by an appeals court.
But, the question is, shouldn’t jurors know the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You decide. Here are five basic facts jurors aren’t told during a trial:
Insurance
During trial, the parties aren’t allowed to tell the jury about insurance. This includes the defendant’s auto insurance, malpractice insurance, commercial liability coverage, or excess policies.
Why not? Because the law requires that jurors not let “bias, prejudice, or sympathy play any part in their decision.” In other words, the verdict should be based on the facts, evidence, and damages. It should not be results-oriented or based on whether insurance will pay the plaintiff’s claims.
However, when the parties are forbidden from mentioning the word insurance, it’s like the elephant in the courtroom. While it’s obvious to some jurors that there’s insurance (i.e. the defendant is represented by a lawyer hired by the insurance company), other jurors are left wondering if a verdict will have to be paid by the defendant personally.
Comparative Negligence
A jury verdict for a plaintiff will be reduced by the percentage of his or her fault. So, when the jury fills out their verdict form at the end of the trial, they are asked to consider the negligence of the plaintiff and all defendants. They can allocate fault as they see fit as long as it totals 100 percent.
For example, assume that a jury finds a plaintiff 40 percent negligent and the defendant 60 percent negligent. And, the jury verdict is for $100,000. In this scenario, the defendant must only pay $60,000.
51 Percent Rule
If a jury finds a plaintiff at least 51 percent negligent, then the plaintiff recovers nothing. Using the prior example, the plaintiff would recover none of the $100,000. This is the case even if the jury believes the defendant was 49 percent responsible for what happened.
Settlement negotiations
The jury is not allowed to know about any settlement negotiations between the parties. This includes any demands, offers, or any settlement communications.
Most cases go to mediation before trial. If the mediation is unsuccessful and the case does not settle, all communications during the mediation are confidential. In fact, the judge doesn’t even know what happens at mediation. Instead, the judge will receive a statement that the case either did or did not settle at mediation.
Changes to the Verdict
Most jurors are not aware that judges have the power to change a jury’s verdict or order a new trial. In civil cases, the judge can reduce the award, add to the award, or set the verdict aside and order a retrial based on the evidence. These instances are relatively rare simply because judges typically do not want to disturb a jury’s verdict.
However, what is more frequent are instances in which verdicts are reduced because of statutory limits in certain types of cases involving medical malpractice and claims against governmental entities. So, while jurors may think they are awarding a certain amount, it may actually be less depending on the caps.
Keep in mind that every case is different. And, of course, the law and the evidence heard by jurors differs based on the type of dispute involved.
So, the next time you receive a jury summons, try to leave room for the possibility that the experience could be an invaluable one for you. I can assure you it is a very important time for the parties standing trial. And, the jury system doesn’t work without jurors like you.
The information in this column is not intended as legal advice, but to provide a general understanding of the law. Readers with legal issues, including those whose questions are addressed here, should consult attorneys for advice on their particular circumstances.
Scott Callahan is a personal injury trial lawyer with offices in Katy and Houston. He has been practicing law for more than 20 years and is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
