Closing Argument Assignment Thank you your honor. May it please the Court. I would like to take this time to thank the members of our jury for their service. Over the last few days, you have heard an extensive amount of testimony, and have been presented with two main issues for your consideration. The first issue is was the defendant, George Jamerson, negligent is his operation of the Fed-Ex commercial tractor he had permission to operate. The second issue is whether or not the defendant Fed-Ex, entrusted their commercial tractor to George Jamerson, whom acted negligently when he failed to stop with traffic, and caused a multi-car automobile accident which involved the Plaintiff and two other drivers. In this case, the Plaintiff, Louise Smith alleges that the defendant, George Jamerson was negligently operating the Fed-Ex commercial tractor trailer when he failed to stop with traffic and caused a multi-car collision. Although he did not physically hit my client, defendant Jamerson’s failure to safely operate the Fed-Ex truck caused the accident which has permanently an adversely affected my clients life. The judge will instruct you that negligence is defined as “the failure to use reasonable care”. “Reasonable …show more content…
care” is the degree of care that a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances. Negligence occurs when a person fails to do something or does something that a reasonable person would or would not do in similar circumstances. In this case, the defendant George Jamerson, failed to exercise reasonable care while driving in the far left lane of the Howard Franklin Bridge on September 1, 2015. As his testimony stated, he was aware that commercial truck drivers are forbidden to drive in the left hand lane on the Howard Franklin; he also has admitted to operating the commercial tractor trailer that caused the initial accident between himself and Sarah Jenkins. The testimony from Mr. Jamerson is undisputed; Mr. Jamerson was negligent in his operation of the Fed-Ex commercial tractor trailer he had been entrusted with. As to the issue of whether the defendant Fed-Ex, entrusted defendant George Jamerson, with their commercial tractor trailer, the evidence you were presented with is undisputed. You had a chance to review the employee contract between Fed-Ex and Mr. Jamerson, read the company policies regarding CB communication, and hear testimony multiple Fed-Ex supervisors of Mr. Jamerson’s. Fed-Ex corporation has admitted that Mr. Jamerson was an employee of their company, and has admitted that he was driving their commercial tractor trailer on the evening of the accident. The defendant, Fed-Ex Corporation does not dispute that George Jamerson was their employee; they dispute the fact that Fed-Ex is partially responsible for causing Mr. Jamerson’s negligence. You have heard testimony from several experts including both accident and medical specialists.
Their testimony has shown that my client has suffered extensive physical and mental injuries as a result of this accident. The auto accident expert also presented testimony which supports the plaintiff’s claim that had Mr. Jamerson not been illegally driving a commercial tractor in the far left lane on the Howard Franklin Bridge, the accident could have been avoided, or at least made a much smaller impact than the accident my client was involved in. The various testimony presented by the experts has shown that my client is in no way at fault for her injuries, and that she has and will continue to suffer permanent injury as a result of both defendant’s
negligence. You will be asked to determine what percentage both the defendants and the plaintiff must bear as a result of this accident. You will be instructed that my client had exercised reasonable care while operating her motor vehicle; and be asked to determine whether or not both of the defendant’s actions were reasonable or not. You have heard testimony that my client has suffered over $200,000.00 in medical bills, and that she is expected to incur at least another $200,000.00 for her future medical bills as a result of this accident. In addition, you heard that my client had no prior medical issues prior to this accident, and that her health and life have been adversely affected due to this accident. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will be asked to determine who was at fault for this accident, and the percentage of their fault. It will be up to each of you to determine what you believe. Was Mr. Jamerson acting with reasonable care when he drove a commercial tractor trailer in the far left lane of a bridge that doesn’t allow commercial trucks to utilize the far left lane? Was Fed-Ex negligent for allowing an emotionally upset individual to operate their commercial tractor trailer after he received devastating news of his son’s car accident? It will be up for you to decide whether or not both of the defendants acted in a negligent manner, and whether or not they failed to exercise reasonable care in their actions. The evidence presented to you is undisputed; my client was not acting negligent while operating her motor vehicle on the evening of September 1, 2015 at approximately 9:05 PM. She had exercised reasonable care in her driving and operating of her vehicle, and through misfortunate and negligence on behalf of the defendant’s has suffered extensive losses in both her health and her career. As far as the damages associated with the accident, my client seeks relief for her medical bills as well as pain and suffering damages. She has already incurred $200,000.00 in past medical bills, and will incur at least another $200,000.00 for her future surgeries she requires as a result of this accident. My client seeks $100,000.00 in pain and suffering damages due to her mental anguish she has suffered from the accident. She had planned on graduating from the University of South Florida in December, and would have a job lined up for upon her graduation. As a result of the accident, my client had to withdraw from her studies, and is now forced to repeat and entire semester of schooling so that she can graduate. This accident has not only caused my client physical pain, but an extensive amount of emotional pain as well. As members of a jury, you have the opportunity to see that justice is achieved for my client. She is required to show a preponderance of the evidence, which means that she must demonstrate that the scales of justice are slightly tipped in her favor. We ask that you please review the evidence carefully and critically for this case. The evidence we have submitted to you should show that my client has done nothing wrong, and that both the defendants acted negligently in this case, and as a result of their negligence, my client has suffered. On behalf of the Plaintiff, Louise Smith, I ask that you find in favor of the Plaintiff, and return a verdict awarding her the sum of $500,000.00. I would like to thank you for your time, patience, and your careful consideration of these facts as they were presented to you.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The respondent (driver) is required to take reasonable care when operating his vehicle to ensure the safety of the appellant. The primary judge highlighted that "content of this duty depends on the circumstances of the case". However, the respondent breached his duty of care by taking his eyes off the road, violating s 5B and s 5C of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002. The respondent nevertheless is not considered negligent as outlined in s5B (1) if he could prevent the outcome of a risk that was not
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury. I am here to represent Justin Garcia, to prove the negligence of Jessica Nordeen. The law of negligence says that negligence occurs if an individual does something harmful that a person of ordinary intelligence would not do. In the next few moments,I will prove to the Jury that there was a breach of duty in the case of Garcia v. Nordeen.
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
I, Israel Tefera a jury number one in the case state of Texas v. James Broadnax, herby give the final verdict on the aforementioned case before the jury. After deliberating on the case, we the jury have given to this court our opinion on the case. If I may, before reading the verdict go through my thought process, I would appreciate it your honor.
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
Marty Anderson was an employee for Family Auto Repair (FAR) in Memphis and was transfer to their Jackson store, which was an hour and a half from his house. The company allow Marty to use a company vehicle to make his long commute, although he had his own vehicle. The terms of the explicit permission to use the vehicle were: to and from work, during lunch breaks, and to deliver and transfer items between FAR’s two facilities either before work or on his way home. Marty Anderson became a victim of the dilemma when he fell asleep at the wheel and injured a man, Steve Spritzer, in the company vehicle, at a time when he did not have explicit permission to be using the vehicle. Marty Anderson’s case can be argued in his favor or in FAR’s favor,
It is unfortunate that accidents that result in injuries are a part of life. Further more it is also unfortunate that often the party responsible for said accident do not feel compelled to offer compensation to the party affected. However in spite of this, there is still hope for the injured party thanks to personal injury lawyers. They are tasked with representing their clients who suffered from these events while making sure that their clients receive the compensation that they deserve. Ultimately personal injury lawyers play a big role with regards to safety initiatives by helping those injured, which is something that we all should aspire to do.
In the civil suit against Firefighter Johnson and the Portage Fire District, the prosecution was charged with providing evidence that negligence by both parties had contributed to the death of Ian Huffman and the attempted homicide of Olivia Duty. Prosecutors allege “Mr. Johnson was driving his personal vehicle as fast as 98 mph on State Rt. 19 on his way to the fire station in Oak Harbor just seconds before he crashed into the rear of Ms. Duty's car at Portage River South Road” (Feehan, 2012, para. 6). The posted speed limit on Portage River South Road was 55 mph at the time of the accident (Curt, 2012). The defense alleges that Firefighter Johnson was using his lights and sirens and that Ian Huffman was not wearing a seatbelt at the...
The plaintiff Woodson is a resident of the state of New York and purchased a vehicle, an Audi, from the Seaway Dealership in the State of New York. The plaintiff Woodson was injured while in Oklahoma, which was caused by a defect in the car. The plaintiff sued the dealership and the other defendants to recover personal injuries in an Oklahoma State court. All defendants were served under he long-arm statute. The dealership and importer objected to the Oklahoma court’s personal jurisdiction.
Last week, Natalie Wolf spoke to our class. Mrs. Wolf discussed some of her cases in the Delaware Superior Court, the Delaware Supreme Court, the Delaware Industrial Accident Board, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. She is a partner at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor out of Wilmington, Delaware and successfully received her J.D. from Georgetown University (she told us to go to the best school you can get into- her firm does not accept applicants from Widener University School of Law). She also said she represents persons injured in auto accidents, work accidents and medical accidents (negligence, etc.). When she was just starting out, she represented insurance companies in personal injury and
Wideman’s injury is sufficiently severe under the law as. The controlling case, Jones v. Harris, 35 Md. App. 556, 371 A.2d 1104 (1977), held that the plaintiff’s injury was not severe as he only suffered from humiliation, already had a nervous nature and was not entirely disabling as he was still able to function properly in his daily life. In a similar case, Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 502 A. 2d 1057 - Md: Court of Special Appeals 1986, the plaintiff was not able to prove that her injury was severe as she only experienced mild consequences that mostly just hurt her ego. This case held that the plaintiff did not prove that the injury leads her to suffer acute emotional distress that seriously debilitated her everyday life and
(1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it;
The fact is that Allana’s ability to enjoy her lifestyle has been diminished. It is our experience that SW Missouri juries will adequately compensate Allana for her losses, especially considering the clear, aggravated liability, by a defendant who simply did not pay attention to her driving, which is so very sad.
All of a sudden, it is you that now has the importance. It’s you, the jury that has the power to potentially change the life of this man sitting here. You have the power to abide by the justice system. You have the power to do the right thing, right here. And that is to let my client, Joshua Hayden, walk away a free man today. Nothing more, nothing less.