Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Just Need to Say No to Some Cases

The Missouri Supreme Court found last week that a truck driver not involved in a truck accident with another driver can sue for the emotional damages suffered when he saw the dead victim in the other car. I’m not sure the decision is legally wrong. But it would not fly in the court of Moral Justice court.

The Plaintiff is seeking $1,623.57 in medical bills, and past and future lost wages exeeding $45,000. This is a bogus claim alert right there. You shouldn’t lose $45,000 in wages and have such small medical bills in 99.999% of the cases. But here is what is worse: the defendant lost his two-year-old daughter because of his own negligence, which has to be the most awful feeling in the world. His emotional distress from the wreck – albeit his fault – is through the roof. Now he sues. There are some things that we can do in this life that we just should not do.

Oh, wait. It gets worse. In the lawsuit, the Defendant sought and received the following admissions:

(a) The “worst image,” for the plaintiff, was the “the ‘baby’ lying in the mangled car”;
(b) Plaintiff experienced “a great deal of grief for the child who died”;
(c) Plaintiff experienced the “paradox of knowing he had no responsibility in her death and wanting her to forgive him at the same time”; and
(d) Plaintiff “visualize[d] the little girl being in heaven” and, “said she’s the lucky one.”

The last one in particular – even if theologically correct – marks the Plaintiff as deranged, and I’m surprised the majority let that go without even a comment. The truck driver is telling the father that his loss is worse than his daughter’s. The crazy paradox is that anyone so grief-stricken over the death of another would subject the father who caused the death of his own two-year-old child more grief.

If you hate plaintiffs and their solicitors, I have given you some fodder today. I think you are wrong; I would love to convert you. But it won’t happen today.

Contact Information