Jury award – Trial Jury http://trial-jury.org/ Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:07:30 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.2 https://trial-jury.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/cropped-icon-32x32.png Jury award – Trial Jury http://trial-jury.org/ 32 32 Despite jury award, court dismissed claim for general non-pecuniary damages resulting from vehicle accident https://trial-jury.org/despite-jury-award-court-dismissed-claim-for-general-non-pecuniary-damages-resulting-from-vehicle-accident/ Thu, 18 Nov 2021 22:42:34 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/despite-jury-award-court-dismissed-claim-for-general-non-pecuniary-damages-resulting-from-vehicle-accident/

The threshold for a non-pecuniary damage claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the injuries occurred “directly or indirectly” from the use of the automobile resulting in permanent physical, mental or psychological impairment, the court said.

To establish such a causal link, the court used the “but for” test, where the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that the injuries would not have occurred had it not been for the negligent conduct of the applicant. automobile.

Applying the causal test, the court ruled out TMJ dysfunction and depression, anxiety and PTSD. According to expert testimony, if the ATM malfunction had been caused by the accident, the symptoms should have appeared closer to the time of the accident, instead of four months later. Girao’s medical records also revealed an underlying dental deformity which was the likely cause of TMJ dysfunction.

The court also found evidence showing that Girao had “a significant history of depression, anxiety and PTSD before the accident”. Additionally, Girao’s expert witnesses did not have complete records before the crash, which included a “diagnosis of major depression with psychotic symptoms in partial remission” about nine months before the crash, the court said.

As for Girao’s neck injury, the court concluded that it was a Grade II whiplash caused by the motor vehicle accident and was permanent. But the Court was not convinced that such an infringement was serious.

]]>
Jury prize for the reinstatement of a dismissed railway worker https://trial-jury.org/jury-prize-for-the-reinstatement-of-a-dismissed-railway-worker/ https://trial-jury.org/jury-prize-for-the-reinstatement-of-a-dismissed-railway-worker/#respond Thu, 04 Nov 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/jury-prize-for-the-reinstatement-of-a-dismissed-railway-worker/

A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the reinstatement of a $ 500,000 jury reward to a dismissed railway worker and overturned the trial judge’s ruling in favor of the railway, in a case over a security.

The decision of the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis centers on the rule of the BNSF Railway Co., based in Fort Worth, Texas, regarding a hy-rail, a pickup truck that can operate at the both on the road and on the tracks, depending on the stop Daniel Monohon v. BNSF Railway Co.

During a conference call in September 2012, a railroad supervisor said employees were required to wear seat belts when driving a hydraulic rail following two accidents where they were not worn, including one that resulted in death.

Mr Monohon, a railroad inspector, objected to the rule, saying if a train comes down the tracks and there is not enough time to remove the seat belt “you will get killed. “.

Later that day, Mr Monohon was found driving a hy-rail without a seatbelt and a subsequent disciplinary hearing led to his dismissal.

Mr Monohon brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Des Moines, alleging that BNSF violated the Federal Rail Safety Act when it fired him for reporting a dangerous safety situation in good faith.

After a four-day trial, a jury awarded Mr. Monohon $ 500,000 in lost wages, benefits and damages due to emotional distress. The court awarded Mr. Monohon $ 301,734 as well as legal fees and costs.

The BNSF then filed a motion for a legal judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that Mr. Monohon’s report was not objectively reasonable and that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court overturned the judgment in favor of BNSF, quashed the order granting his motion for trial as a question of law, and remanded the case for restoration of the verdict of jury.

“We find that there was a ‘legally sufficient basis of evidence to’ support the jury’s conclusion,” the ruling said.

Based on the evidence, “we cannot conclude that there was” a complete lack of evidence “such that no reasonable juror could have concluded that the wearing of the seat belt during the hy -railing is a dangerous security condition, ”he said.

There was also sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the supervisor intentionally retaliated against Mr. Monohon, according to the ruling.

Lawyers handling the case did not respond to requests for comment.

In March, the US Department of Labor ordered the BNSF to pay more than $ 290,000 in damages for the dismissal of a worker following his workplace accident.

]]>
https://trial-jury.org/jury-prize-for-the-reinstatement-of-a-dismissed-railway-worker/feed/ 0
Texas jury prize of $ 353 million and high-profile third verdict in 2021: will we see more in 2022? https://trial-jury.org/texas-jury-prize-of-353-million-and-high-profile-third-verdict-in-2021-will-we-see-more-in-2022/ Mon, 01 Nov 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/texas-jury-prize-of-353-million-and-high-profile-third-verdict-in-2021-will-we-see-more-in-2022/

On October 25, 2021, a Texas jury handed down a verdict of $ 353 million to a pedestrian, Ulysses Cruz, a pedestrian from the United Airlines wing, who was struck by a van at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport. in September 2019. Cruz became paraplegic as a result of the accident. Cruz filed a lawsuit against Allied Aviation Fueling Co of Houston Inc (the owner of the pickup truck) and Reginald Willis (the driver of the pickup truck) in November 2019 in Houston (the “defendants”).

Jury trial

The case was originally scheduled to be tried for January 4, 2021. In November 2020, the court issued an order extending the trial until May 17, 2021. The defendants filed a summons in mandamus after the judge denied a trial with jury and ordered a trial before a bench. . The Houston First Court of Appeals granted the application to quash the judge’s decisions dismissing their request for a jury trial.

The trial judge then argued for a virtual jury trial, but admitted that she had never conducted a virtual jury trial before. The defendants complained that the judge had not given them any “rule, procedure or process” to follow in conducting a virtual jury trial and argued that a virtual jury trial would deprive them of the opportunity to select. effectively a jury, present evidence and confront and question witnesses.

The defendants filed a mandamus order that the trial court’s “unilateral, arbitrary and unauthorized” decision to force the parties to hold a virtual jury trial did not comply with the Supreme Court’s emergency orders of Texas rendered during the pandemic, which did not allow a virtual jury trial to be held without the consent of all parties. In June 2021, the Texas Supreme Court suspended the virtual jury trial.

The case was presented to an in-person jury on October 8, 2021, after being transferred to another Harris County judge.

Damage

The jury found Allied 70% and Willis 30% responsible for the accident; the jury did not attribute any fault to Cruz. The jury found Allied was negligent for his failure to properly train Willis and Willis for negligent use of the van.

Bill 19

The Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 19 (“HB 19”) to end the exorbitant verdicts in Texas regarding commercial vehicle accidents by separating the driver’s liability from any liability arguments against the driver’s employer. However, HB 19 only applies to cases filed after September 2021. If HB 19 applied to the Cruz case, the jury would have to find Willis, the driver, responsible in a first trial before a second trial against Allied, the employer would be heard. In doing so, a jury would not know which company employed the driver and the extent of their fault, unless the lawsuit advances, after which the employer’s damages would be assessed. It would be purely speculative to suggest that the conclusions on liability would have been different. However, the separation of liability findings and compensation for damages could act as a buffer and lead to lower damages awards.

Impact of the verdict and future of litigation in Texas

The Cruz verdict follows a trend in the verdicts of Texas juries awarding absurdly excessive damages for uneconomic damages. Whereas in the past, non-economic awards totaled between one and three times the economic damages (a multiple of three only found in the most widely distributed injuries), juries now award up to ten times the economic damages apparently. without much worry. While such rewards have been seen in smaller accidents (eg, slips and falls from work; automobile fender benders “), the trend in larger cases such as Cruz highlights the problem for the future He defies reason for a jury to award $ 35 million in economic damages and over $ 317 million in non-economic damages.

This trend is due in large part to the fact that plaintiffs have not found ways to circumvent old tort reform measures, which placed limits on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in a particular case. Rather than pleading and asking the jury to award punitive damages in bodily injury and wrongful death cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys use pleas for the emotion of jurors under what is a variant of the theory of reptiles (the jury takes the place of the injured plaintiff). When presenting their case, plaintiffs ask the jury to award specific amounts for the duration of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering. Asking $ 1 million for every minute of suffering is now the norm, and recent jury verdicts suggest such demands are becoming more than acceptable in Texas courtrooms.

We are monitoring appeals to the Texas Courts of Appeal and the Texas Supreme Court asking those courts to overturn these verdicts as “excessive”. With the recent trend by juries to award nine digits for non-economic damages, we are cautiously optimistic that these courts will end the excess and give the Texas legislature time to respond with more appropriate and appropriate reform of the law. tort liability.

Our extensive experience in overseeing complex and high exposure cases such as Cruz puts us at the forefront of defending and following up on similar cases for our business clients and insurers. Please let us know if we can help you.

]]>
Jury Prize of $ 17 Million for Fatal Shooting by Resting Officer in California https://trial-jury.org/jury-prize-of-17-million-for-fatal-shooting-by-resting-officer-in-california/ Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/jury-prize-of-17-million-for-fatal-shooting-by-resting-officer-in-california/

A federal jury awarded $ 17 million to the parents of a mentally ill man who was shot dead in a Costco store by a Los Angeles police officer on leave.

The Riverside panel ruled on a lawsuit brought against the city of LA and the former officer on June 14, 2019, murdering Kenneth French, 32.

“I am satisfied with the verdict and hope it will do justice to the family,” Dale Galipo, a family lawyer, told KNBC-TV.

Jurors in the trial found Salvador Sanchez, a seven-year Los Angeles Police veteran, was acting within the scope of his job even though he was off duty. This means that the city can be responsible for a large part of the reward.

The city will consider its options, including an appeal, said Rob Wilcox, spokesperson for the city’s attorney’s office.

Sanchez was shopping at a sausage sample table in the Corona store in southeast Los Angeles when French hit him or pushed him from behind without warning, authorities said.

Sanchez was holding his 1.5-year-old son in his arms when he was thrown to the ground.

Sanchez drew a handgun and opened fire, killing French and seriously injuring his parents, Russell and Paola French.

Sanchez told investigators he believed French had a gun, that he had been shot and that his life and that of his son were in immediate danger. However, French was unarmed and was walking away from Sanchez when he opened fire.

His parents said French was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The LAPD fired Sanchez last year after the city’s Civilian Council of Police Commissioners determined that French’s conduct did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury, meaning the use of force murder was not “objectively reasonable”.

The Riverside County District Attorney refused to indict Sanchez when a grand jury failed to indict him. However, the state attorney general charged him with intentional manslaughter and assault with a semi-automatic firearm.

He’s awaiting trial.

An email requesting comment from David Winslow, a lawyer representing Sanchez in the criminal case, was not immediately returned.

Copyright 2021 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The subjects
California

The most important insurance news, delivered to your inbox every business day.

Receive the trusted insurance industry newsletter

]]>
Grand Jury Prize Could Open Door to Another Richmond Cannabis Dispensary https://trial-jury.org/grand-jury-prize-could-open-door-to-another-richmond-cannabis-dispensary/ Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/grand-jury-prize-could-open-door-to-another-richmond-cannabis-dispensary/

A court case last month may have set the stage for a new cannabis dispensary in Richmond, the resurrection of an old fight to keep it away – or both.

Two Richmond dispensary owners were ordered to pay $ 5 million in damages for conspiracy against a rival owner. On September 23, a Contra Costa County jury found that William Koziol and Darrin Parle, who run the Green Remedy Collective, had prevented a potential dispensary, Richmond Compassionate Care Collective, from establishing a business in Richmond. The jury awarded RCCC $ 5 million in damages.

The ruling ends a more than five-year legal battle that began before recreational cannabis use was legal in California. And that may have revived RCCC’s attempt to settle in Richmond, which many residents had opposed in the years leading up to the trial.

The owners of RCCC “are going to do everything they can to go back to city council and say they have been unfairly deprived of their license,” said Ron Foreman, who introduced RCCC in the case.

Lina Velasco, director of community development who manages cannabis licenses for the city, declined to comment on RCCC’s potential to receive a license.

RCCC filed a lawsuit in 2016, alleging that the owners of three dispensaries and several community leaders had conspired to prevent the opening of RCCC.

After a 28-day trial, the jury concluded that Koziol and Parle were preventing RCCC from operating in a viable location. The jury dropped the charges against a third operator of Green Remedy, Alexis Parle. Community leaders and other dispensary owners were dismissed from the case before the jury trial began.

Foreman said the jury’s decision could be tripled under federal antitrust laws. He said he believed the case was the country’s first antitrust case in the cannabis industry.

“It’s a warning to the industry that it will be ruled by competition,” Foreman said.

More than a decade ago, RCCC was among the first companies to be licensed as a medical cannabis dispensary in Richmond, but never opened due to a series of zoning and regulatory issues. repression of the community.

RCCC argued that whenever it found a new location for a store, rival dispensary owners and their allies would allegedly lease the properties or dissuade owners from renting to RCCC. The lawsuit claimed that RCCC’s rivals met at Café Pascal, Romano’s Macaroni Grill or private homes to identify potentially available properties in commercial zoning districts and “ways to block all C-compliant properties. 3 and C-2 until the expiry of the RCCC license “.

Under Richmond’s zoning rules, cannabis dispensaries are only permitted in certain commercial areas and cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school.

The plaintiffs argued that the rival group would use the City of Richmond’s website to find properties with compliant zoning, then visit the owners and “pose as potential buyers or tenants.” The lawsuit says the rivals worked to “ensure that no landlord and / or landlord would rent or sell any property to RCCC.”

In one case, RCCC alleges that the owners of Green Remedy purchased commercial property at 4800 Bissell Ave. and asked the city to move their license to that address, even though Green Remedy continued to operate only at its original address on Hilltop Mall Road.

Lawyers representing rival dispensary owners argued that while they were exploring other properties, they were unable to open stores in several of the potential locations due to proximity to a school or funding issues.

“The evidence was overwhelming that they had purchased the other properties purely for legitimate business purposes,” said Barry Himmelstein, an attorney representing Koziol.

Himmelstein and Parle’s attorney, Scot Candell, said they plan to appeal the jury’s decision.

]]>
Singer Nanjiyamma dedicates special jury prize to Sachy – The New Indian Express https://trial-jury.org/singer-nanjiyamma-dedicates-special-jury-prize-to-sachy-the-new-indian-express/ Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/singer-nanjiyamma-dedicates-special-jury-prize-to-sachy-the-new-indian-express/

Through Online office

Singer Nanjiyamma, who won the Special Jury Prize for the Kalakkatha Sandhanameram song in the movie Ayyappanum Koshiyum, dedicated the award to Sachy. KR Sachidanandan alias Sachy, who directed Ayyappanum Koshiyum, died in June of last year from cardiac arrest.

When the Kerala State Film Awards were announced on Saturday, Nanjiyamma won the Special Jury Prize for the song she performed in the movie starring Prithviraj Sukumaran and Biju Menon.

“Without Sachy, I wouldn’t have had the chance to sing in the movie,” reacted Nanjiyamma, 61, when she learned of the award for her.

Kalakkatha Sandhanameram was written by Nanjiyamma herself and composed by Jakess Bejoy. The song was an instant hit with the masses. She also starred in the film.

Nanjiyamma belongs to the Irula tribe. She comes from a hamlet of Attappadi on the border of Tamil Nadu and Kerala in the district of Palakkad. She started singing at the age of 13. It was by accompanying her mother and grandmother to graze cattle that the picturesque surroundings of her native village inspired her to sing.

She is singer of Azad Kala Samithi founded by Pazhaniswami, who also performed in Ayyappanum Koshiyum. The Samithi was trained to revive the art forms of the Irula people.

]]>
Pilot film Wilfred ‘Wop’ May receives jury award at Edmonton International Film Festival https://trial-jury.org/pilot-film-wilfred-wop-may-receives-jury-award-at-edmonton-international-film-festival/ Fri, 08 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/pilot-film-wilfred-wop-may-receives-jury-award-at-edmonton-international-film-festival/

Content of the article

A new film about the legacy of pilot Wilfred ‘Wop’ May received the Jury Award for Best Documentary Short (Alberta) at the Edmonton International Film Festival (EIFF).

Content of the article

Blind Ambition: The Story of Wop May tells the story of one of Canada’s most famous pilots. May survived a dogfight with the famous Red Baron during World War I and transported medicine to communities in northern Canada. May spent from 1929 to 1935 running Commercial Airways out of Fort McMurray.

Originally the plan was to make a stop-motion animated short, but based on conversations between co-director Frederick Kroetsch and the Alberta Aviation Museum, the idea for the film was born. Kroetsch co-director Tom Robinson said that the fact that May performed a significant amount of thefts after being blinded in one eye was a key part of her story. May had been hit in the eye by a shard of steel while working on a lathe in Dayton, Ohio, after World War I.

“He was a fading guy in history and we wanted to bring his memory back,” Robinson said. “Not only was he a hero, but he was a hero who had to sacrifice things. He couldn’t have spent as much time at home as he would have liked. Part of our message is that he is an amazing man who has done amazing things for Canada and the world, but it has come at a cost. “

May also flew the first airmail to the Arctic, formed the first Canadian flying club and the Royal Canadian Air Force Para Rescue Group. In 1932, May made international news by participating in the “Mad Trapper” manhunt. The search for Albert Johnson, a trapper who shot one policeman and killed another, marked the police’s first aerial manhunt. Fort McMurray Heritage Village has a cabin dedicated to May and archivist Kailey Gordon has said he was instrumental in the early days of aviation in the area.

Content of the article

“He was an amazing guy,” said Gordon. “He lived in a cabin on Franklin Avenue. We have a photo of one of his planes, a seven minute video of him and the propeller of one of his planes.

May’s son Denny was instrumental in the project, but passed away just before the premiere at EIFF last weekend. Robinson said Denny was an incredible storyteller and the project wouldn’t exist without his contributions.

“Denny has been so generous with his time,” said Robinson. “He was such a nice and kind man. It was great to listen to him because he was such an experienced storyteller. It shows in the film. It was so heartbreaking; I had spoken to him the day before the premiere.

The film was shot on location in the Edmonton area and features reenactments shot on 35mm film and an original score by a 50-piece orchestra. Blind Ambition can be viewed online until the end of its release later this month on the EIFF website. The film is scheduled to be part of the Wop May exhibit at the Alberta Aviation Museum.

“He really brought the idea of ​​aviation as a business enterprise to the world,” said Robinson. “He was a guy who always said yes. If people needed help, he was there to help.

A file photo of the Fort McMurray Heritage Village in Wop May, dated between 1920 and 1940. Photo by Denny May.

smclean@postmedia.com

]]>
Tesla faces investor test after grand jury prize on racism https://trial-jury.org/tesla-faces-investor-test-after-grand-jury-prize-on-racism/ Wed, 06 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/tesla-faces-investor-test-after-grand-jury-prize-on-racism/

SAN FRANCISCO / BOSTON, Oct.6 (Reuters) – A contractor won a $ 137 million jury prize for workplace racism against Tesla Inc (TSLA.O), increasing pressure on the electric vehicle maker whose shareholders will vote Thursday on a proposal to look at how it handles similar complaints for full-time employees.

The non-binding shareholder resolution asks Tesla’s board of directors to study the impact of the company’s current use of compulsory arbitration to resolve complaints of harassment and discrimination in its workplace. Tesla opposes the plan.

On Monday, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded the award to former Tesla employee Owen Diaz. “The verdict sends a message to US businesses that you need to make sure there is no racist behavior,” Lawrence Organ, his lawyer, told Reuters.

Diaz was able to face a public trial because the contract workers were not subject to Tesla’s compulsory arbitration, which requires employees to resolve disputes out of court.

Tesla advised against the resolution because, he said, arbitration “benefits both parties with a fair resolution and a faster return to their respective priorities without bogging them down in lengthy litigation.”

Some tech companies have reduced or eliminated compulsory arbitration. Uber and Lyft no longer require mandatory arbitration in sexual harassment cases. Google ended compulsory arbitration in 2019. In April, nearly half of the shareholders of Goldman Sachs Group Inc voted in favor of reviewing the bank’s use of compulsory arbitration.

Imre Szalai, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans, said such a verdict against Tesla would create “shame and awareness” of the company’s problems.

“The public is realizing that Tesla needs to change and is increasing the pressure on the company, as opposed to a confidential arbitration award that doesn’t get as much publicity,” he said.

Tesla’s arbitration agreements with employees and customers prevent them from publicly fighting in legal disputes over compensation, sexual harassment, race, disability and other types of discrimination, as well as product defects .

There are about 100 cases in US federal and state courts where Tesla has sought to require arbitration, including lawsuits against the company over employment, personal injury and contract issues, according to the Reuters review of Westlaw case data.

Kristin Hull, CEO of Nia Impact Capital who filed the resolution, said Monday’s jury verdict could help build support. A similar measure last year garnered a 27% share of the votes cast. Musk owns 23.1% of Tesla’s shares.

“It will be alarming,” she told Reuters after the verdict. “It’s a huge brand risk for Tesla to have these cases.”

Tesla’s credentials in clean transportation have made it a popular investment for environmental, social and governance investors. “It has surprised many environmental investors and they are not happy,” she said.

Nia Impact Capital has attempted to influence main shareholder BlackRock Inc (BLK.N), whose funds voted against the resolution last year. BlackRock declined to comment.

Tesla said that in the years since Diaz worked at the company, he has added employees to investigate complaints and promote equal opportunity.

In a blog post after the jury verdict, Tesla Vice President Valerie Capers Workman wrote that “we will continue to remind everyone who enters Tesla’s workplace that any discriminatory slurs – no matter what. intention or who uses them – will not be tolerated.

Proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis have both recommended investors support the proposal, as they did last year for a similar proposal.

Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin and Ross Kerber and Rick Linsk; Editing by Peter Henderson and David Gregorio

Our Standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

]]>
Tesla faces investor test after grand jury prize on racism | Invest News https://trial-jury.org/tesla-faces-investor-test-after-grand-jury-prize-on-racism-invest-news/ Wed, 06 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/tesla-faces-investor-test-after-grand-jury-prize-on-racism-invest-news/

By Hyunjoo Jin, Ross Kerber and Rick Linsk

SAN FRANCISCO / BOSTON (Reuters) – A contract worker won a $ 137 million jury prize for workplace racism against Tesla Inc, increasing pressure on the electric vehicle maker whose shareholders will vote on Thursday on a proposal to review the way it handles similar complaints for full-time employees.

The non-binding shareholder resolution asks Tesla’s board of directors to study the impact of the company’s current use of compulsory arbitration to resolve complaints of harassment and discrimination in its workplace. Tesla opposes the plan.

On Monday, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded the award to former Tesla employee Owen Diaz. “The verdict sends a message to US businesses that you need to make sure there is no racist behavior,” Lawrence Organ, his lawyer, told Reuters.

Diaz was able to face a public trial because the contract workers were not subject to Tesla’s compulsory arbitration, which requires employees to resolve disputes out of court.

Tesla advised against the resolution because, he said, arbitration “benefits both parties with a fair resolution and a faster return to their respective priorities without bogging them down in lengthy litigation.”

Some tech companies have reduced or eliminated compulsory arbitration. Uber and Lyft no longer require mandatory arbitration in sexual harassment cases. Google ended compulsory arbitration in 2019. In April, nearly half of the shareholders of Goldman Sachs Group Inc voted in favor of reviewing the bank’s use of compulsory arbitration.

Imre Szalai, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans, said such a verdict against Tesla would create “shame and awareness” of the company’s problems.

“The public is realizing that Tesla needs to change and is increasing the pressure on the company, as opposed to a confidential arbitration award that doesn’t get as much publicity,” he said.

Tesla’s arbitration agreements with employees and customers prevent them from publicly fighting in legal disputes over compensation, sexual harassment, race, disability and other types of discrimination, as well as product defects .

There are about 100 cases in US federal and state courts where Tesla has sought to require arbitration, including lawsuits against the company over employment, personal injury and contract issues, according to the Reuters review of Westlaw case data.

Kristin Hull, CEO of Nia Impact Capital who filed the resolution, said Monday’s jury verdict could help build support. A similar measure last year garnered a 27% share of the votes cast. Musk owns 23.1% of Tesla’s shares.

“It will be alarming,” she told Reuters after the verdict. “It’s a huge brand risk for Tesla to have these cases.”

Tesla’s credentials in clean transportation have made it a popular investment for environmental, social and governance investors. “It has surprised many environmental investors and they are not happy,” she said.

Nia Impact Capital has attempted to influence main shareholder BlackRock Inc, whose funds voted against the resolution last year. BlackRock declined to comment.

Tesla said that in the years since Diaz worked at the company, he has added employees to investigate complaints and promote equal opportunity.

In a blog post after the jury verdict, Tesla Vice President Valerie Capers Workman wrote that “we will continue to remind everyone who enters Tesla’s workplace that any discriminatory slurs – no matter what. intention or who uses them – will not be tolerated “.

Proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis have both recommended investors support the proposal, as they did last year for a similar proposal.

(Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin and Ross Kerber and Rick Linsk; Editing by Peter Henderson and David Gregorio)

Copyright 2021 Thomson Reuters.

]]>
Mahe shares her feelings on the jury prize and the safety of blind cords https://trial-jury.org/mahe-shares-her-feelings-on-the-jury-prize-and-the-safety-of-blind-cords/ Wed, 06 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/mahe-shares-her-feelings-on-the-jury-prize-and-the-safety-of-blind-cords/
Sunny mahé

When Elsie had her accident, I had no idea children were dying on corded blinds. I didn’t know it was an accident that happened once or twice a month. The blinds that were sold to me had a warning label from 1985 (obsolete at the time of sale by three generations of industry standard updates) and I didn’t even know it was there, hidden under the lower rail resting against the threshold. I was never offered a child-safe wand instead of cords, and I was never given cleats to wind cords out of reach. I didn’t know what a rope cleat was. I didn’t know how to ask them – you don’t know what you don’t know.

I never wanted to know so much about blinds. I thought they were just going to settle down and I wouldn’t think about them anymore. Maybe you already knew that cord blinds were listed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission as one of the “top five hidden dangers” in the home? Maybe you are one of the lucky ones who already knew how to cut cords short, install cord cleats or never place furniture in front of your blinds? Or maybe you are one of the millions of mothers like me who just didn’t know you would need to child proof them.

I know all this now. But I had to pay for this information out of my child’s life.

Our trial was the first of its kind. The precedent he sets has already had an impact on movements within the industry. We were offered over a million dollars before the trial just to leave. A million dollars wouldn’t have moved the needle to impact change for anyone other than me. If at some point I had believed it was just me and my family, I wouldn’t have cared. I wouldn’t have chosen to relive every aspect of Elsie’s horrific accident in great detail, knowing that the entire defense was to blame.

Do you have any idea how terrifying it was for me to take the witness stand and see police photos of my house on the day of the accident with the intention of proving I was a negligent mother? ? A dusty piano, a couch full of unwanted items on the way to DI’s door, the cluttered stomach of my heavy sectional couch that had been tossed in half so first responders had more room to work on Elsie, wrappers from the medical supplies and purple medical gloves left on my living room floor next to Elsie’s favorite dress that had been cut from her tiny body and left in place – cold, sterile snapshots of the worst day of my life .

And the reality is that now I already know everything I need about the blinds. I have already removed all the cord blinds from the interior of my house. My child is already dead. I had already lost before the start of the trial, so there would be no “winner” for me; no astronomical amount of money could ever make up for Elsie’s loss, and it is disgusting for anyone to believe he could.

The jury returned from deliberation with a number that far exceeded any amount suggested during the trial. The decision to award punitive damages is something a jury decides to pursue when it finds the conduct of a person or a company to be reprehensible. It aims to punish past behavior and discourage future infringements. This is the message that the industry has received loud and clear with the verdict delivered by the jury. This victory was for a mother-to-be who, I hope, will never even know this was something that could happen. We have done our part to protect other families from having to suffer the loss we have.

While I am legally unable to comment on the details of the resolution, I can share that I absolutely recognize the enormous responsibility these eight jurors have placed on us. I understand stewardship. I can tell you that I looked them in the eye and promised to bless our community.

There are several avenues that we are already pursuing to keep this promise, some of which were already in place:

• Miracles From Elsie, the foundation we created in honor of Elsie, helps families navigate a medical crisis, provides grief counseling to families who have lost a child and promotes awareness of giving. organs

• Mental Health For Heroes is another foundation funded by Miracles From Elsie. It pays for all the personal expenses of our police, firefighters, paramedics, and their spouses and children for mental health care. We sponsor therapists to get the best PTSD training and work to break down the stigma and stereotypes associated with our first responders getting the help they need to deal with the trauma they experience each time. day at work.

• We are also working to put together educational information to disseminate to new mothers in the hospital regarding the security risks hidden in their homes.

We love it here. We love Utah and we love the Utahns. We are committed to making a positive difference in our community. Thank you for the grace and support you have given our family over the years. We hope to pay it forward.

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to our outstanding local lawyers, Alan Mortensen, Lance Milne and Chris Cheney, as well as our experts from St. Louis, Jim Corrigan, Jim O’Leary and John Gore.

Sunny mahé
Lehi, Utah

]]>