Carnahan lawsuit verdict

[Snowbird]

More evidence of the critical shortage of working neurons. Here's
a link which doesn't require registering (KC Star has a better article)

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2004/01/12/daily61.html

Summary: Carnahans sue Parker Hanafin for $100 million claiming
malfunction of their vacuum pumps caused the accident

Parker Hanafin presents evidence that in fact both vacuum
pumps were working at the time of the accident. Randy
Carnahan reported malfunction of his primary AI, not his
vacuum system. (NTSB report concludes both vacuum pumps
were working)

Jury awards Carnahans $4 million.

PH-lawyers claim victory -- they got out of it with only
$4 million and no punative damages


Somehow that last makes me sadder than the rest -- just how screwed
up is a system where the lawyers for the defense are assessed
$4 million for a situation which wasn't their fault in the first
place, and they go home happy?

:( :(
Sydney

[Judah]

The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will probably
owe money anyway.

The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the lawyers.


(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

> More evidence of the critical shortage of working neurons. Here's
> a link which doesn't require registering (KC Star has a better article)
>
> http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2004/01/12/daily61
..
> html
>
> Summary: Carnahans sue Parker Hanafin for $100 million claiming
> malfunction of their vacuum pumps caused the accident
>
> Parker Hanafin presents evidence that in fact both vacuum
> pumps were working at the time of the accident. Randy
> Carnahan reported malfunction of his primary AI, not his
> vacuum system. (NTSB report concludes both vacuum pumps
> were working)
>
> Jury awards Carnahans $4 million.
>
> PH-lawyers claim victory -- they got out of it with only
> $4 million and no punative damages
>
>
> Somehow that last makes me sadder than the rest -- just how screwed
> up is a system where the lawyers for the defense are assessed
> $4 million for a situation which wasn't their fault in the first
> place, and they go home happy?
>
>:( :(
> Sydney
>

[Dan Luke]

"Judah" wrote:
> The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will
> probably owe money anyway.

To whom?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> More evidence of the critical shortage of working neurons. Here's
> a link which doesn't require registering (KC Star has a better article)
>
>
http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2004/01/12/daily61.html
>
> Summary: Carnahans sue Parker Hanafin for $100 million claiming
> malfunction of their vacuum pumps caused the accident
>
> Parker Hanafin presents evidence that in fact both vacuum
> pumps were working at the time of the accident. Randy
> Carnahan reported malfunction of his primary AI, not his
> vacuum system. (NTSB report concludes both vacuum pumps
> were working)
>
> Jury awards Carnahans $4 million.
>
> PH-lawyers claim victory -- they got out of it with only
> $4 million and no punative damages
>
>
> Somehow that last makes me sadder than the rest -- just how screwed
> up is a system where the lawyers for the defense are assessed
> $4 million for a situation which wasn't their fault in the first
> place, and they go home happy?
>
> :( :(

Welcome to the reality of the US Tort system!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Judah" wrote:
> > The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will
> > probably owe money anyway.
>
> To whom?
>
To the agents that did research, investigations, gathered depositions....the
"court costs", and "other costs" that often eat up all the proceeds of
litigation.

You knew that, Dan.

[smackey]

Judah > wrote in message >...
> The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will probably
> owe money anyway.
>
> The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the lawyers.


This is about the stupidest post of the day. Lawyer fees will be
one-thid, typically; perhaps, forty percent. They probaly spent
$25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
travel, exhibits etc. The Plaintiffs will wind up with around $2.5
million, give or take. Most or all of it will be tax free.

Of course, the conservative, anti-lawyer/civil justice crowd could
hope that their favorite solution to the "lawsuit crisis", i.e. loser
pays winner's attorney fees- would solve the problem. Then PH could
pay $5.3 million. :)

Question: Why was this a "stupid lawsuit"?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"smackey" > wrote in message
m...
> Judah > wrote in message
>...
> > The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will probably
> > owe money anyway.
> >
> > The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the
lawyers.
>
>
> This is about the stupidest post of the day. Lawyer fees will be
> one-thid, typically; perhaps, forty percent. They probaly spent
> $25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
> travel, exhibits etc. The Plaintiffs will wind up with around $2.5
> million, give or take. Most or all of it will be tax free.

No, it will most emphatically NOT be tax free.


> Of course, the conservative, anti-lawyer/civil justice crowd could

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

> hope that their favorite solution to the "lawsuit crisis", i.e. loser
> pays winner's attorney fees- would solve the problem. Then PH could
> pay $5.3 million. :)

You better laugh...at yourself!

>
> Question: Why was this a "stupid lawsuit"?

[Bill Denton]

I must take issue with your statement that: "They (the attorneys) probably
spent $25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
travel, exhibits etc."

While the attorney's do "front" this money, it is in fact a charge against
the client. So, this amount is deducted from the client's share of the award
and returned to the lawyers.


"smackey" > wrote in message
m...
> Judah > wrote in message
>...
> > The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will probably
> > owe money anyway.
> >
> > The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the
lawyers.
>
>
> This is about the stupidest post of the day. Lawyer fees will be
> one-thid, typically; perhaps, forty percent. They probaly spent
> $25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
> travel, exhibits etc. The Plaintiffs will wind up with around $2.5
> million, give or take. Most or all of it will be tax free.
>
> Of course, the conservative, anti-lawyer/civil justice crowd could
> hope that their favorite solution to the "lawsuit crisis", i.e. loser
> pays winner's attorney fees- would solve the problem. Then PH could
> pay $5.3 million. :)
>
> Question: Why was this a "stupid lawsuit"?

[Judah]

It seems to me to be a stupid lawsuit because there was clear and
objective evidence that the defendant's equipment was in no way
responsible for the death of the victims.

The defense of your position about this being the stupidest post of the
day is based on nothing but your own hunches and opinions. Your estimate
of their fees and costs is based on nothing more than your own hunch. And
I'm not convinced that typical contingency fees are as you say they are.

Finally, to my knowledge, at least some court-case winnings are not tax
free. In fact, a recent article I read (although admittedly, I trust the
media almost as much as lawyers) discussed a specific case where the
court case winnings, INCLUDING that money paid to the contingency
lawyers, was considered taxable income. In that specific case, the taxes
equated to about half the winnings, the other half went to lawyers, and
at the end, between medical bills, court costs, filing fees, payments to
investogators and expert witnesses, and all that, the "winner" owed about
$10,000.

Since then, in fact as a direct result of responding to your post, it
seems that there are indeed some court costs that are not taxable, so
perhaps this particular settlement is not taxable and the winner didn't
end up losing money.

But at the end of the day, all that is left is the reality:
Parker Hannifin paid $4M to Carnahan.
They also paid their own lawyers (presumably an exhorbitant amount of
money in the 7-figure range).
Carnahan paid AT LEAST $1.33M to their lawyers (I believe it was much
closer to $2M.)
Carnahan paid expert witnesses, investigators, and other related
expenses.

The best case scenario is that the collective attorneys in this case took
home about the same amount as Carnahan's family.

All because Parker Hanifin supplies vacuum pumps in airplanes, and they
could have failed (but didn't).

Sorry if my faith in this country's legal system has been shattered.


I don't claim to have the answers. I don't think the loser should pay the
winner's legal fees. I think people (lawyers) who bring frivolous
lawsuits should be penalized. And I think damages that cannot be
quantified should be limited. There needs to be some sort of check-and-
balance system for our legal system. It's not there now, ad the lawyers
have demonstrated that they cannot police themselves.



(smackey) wrote in
m:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...
>> The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will
>> probably owe money anyway.
>>
>> The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the
>> lawyers.
>
>
> This is about the stupidest post of the day. Lawyer fees will be
> one-thid, typically; perhaps, forty percent. They probaly spent
> $25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
> travel, exhibits etc. The Plaintiffs will wind up with around $2.5
> million, give or take. Most or all of it will be tax free.
>
> Of course, the conservative, anti-lawyer/civil justice crowd could
> hope that their favorite solution to the "lawsuit crisis", i.e. loser
> pays winner's attorney fees- would solve the problem. Then PH could
> pay $5.3 million. :)
>
> Question: Why was this a "stupid lawsuit"?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> I must take issue with your statement that: "They (the attorneys) probably
> spent $25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
> travel, exhibits etc."
>
> While the attorney's do "front" this money, it is in fact a charge against
> the client. So, this amount is deducted from the client's share of the
award
> and returned to the lawyers.
>

And there is no incentive for a lawyer to minimize expenses. Quite the
contrary, they must "be deligent" and spare no expense. The tobacco
litigation and similar cases are good examples of using the entire award for
"expenses".

Further, to think the lawyers have even the slightest interst in "justice"
is rib-splitting comedy

>
> "smackey" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Judah > wrote in message
> >...
> > > The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will
probably
> > > owe money anyway.
> > >
> > > The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the
> lawyers.
> >
> >
> > This is about the stupidest post of the day. Lawyer fees will be
> > one-thid, typically; perhaps, forty percent. They probaly spent
> > $25-30,000 of their own money for expenses-experts, depositions,
> > travel, exhibits etc. The Plaintiffs will wind up with around $2.5
> > million, give or take. Most or all of it will be tax free.
> >
> > Of course, the conservative, anti-lawyer/civil justice crowd could
> > hope that their favorite solution to the "lawsuit crisis", i.e. loser
> > pays winner's attorney fees- would solve the problem. Then PH could
> > pay $5.3 million. :)
> >
> > Question: Why was this a "stupid lawsuit"?
>
>

[lowflyer]

Consider this case recently presented on a network news show (can't
remember which): Woman wins 1.5 million dollar sexual harassment suit.
She gets approx. $330,000, lawyers get rest. Now she has to pay tax on
the whole award and has a net loss of $100,000! Don't know the details
of the tax law involved, but those are facts as presented on the the
show.

Judah > wrote in message >...
> The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will probably
> owe money anyway.
>
> The only one who makes any money in these stupid lawsuits is the lawyers.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
om...
> Consider this case recently presented on a network news show (can't
> remember which): Woman wins 1.5 million dollar sexual harassment suit.
> She gets approx. $330,000, lawyers get rest. Now she has to pay tax on
> the whole award and has a net loss of $100,000! Don't know the details
> of the tax law involved, but those are facts as presented on the the
> show.
>
That wasn't Monica, was it?

[Tom Sixkiller]

> wrote in message ...
> In article >, Dan Luke says...
> >
> >"Judah" wrote:
> >> The best part is that at the end of the day, the Carnahans will
> >> probably owe money anyway.
> >
> >To whom?
> >
> >
> The IRS.
> -----------
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/12/eveningnews/main592779.shtml
>
>
> IRS Turns Victory To Defeat
>
>
> Cindy Spina should be one of the happiest people around.
>
> She finally won a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer. It took
six
> long years.
>
> "I was elated," says Spina. "I can't even describe how I felt - I felt so
good."
>
> She was awarded $1.5 million, including fees for her attorney.
>
> But then, as CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan reports, the IRS got
involved.
>
> "This is where it gets to be Alice in Wonderland time," says attorney
Monica
> McFadden.
>
> After legal expenses, Spina was left with $375,000.
>
> But the IRS wanted $475,000 in taxes. So not only did she have to give up
her
> entire award, but she owed the $100,000 tax bill.
>
> "It felt like my victory was taken from me," says Spina.
>
> And she is not alone.
>
> "It's happening to every civil rights plaintiff that wins a lawsuit," says
> McFadden.
>
> They are victims of a little known portion of the U.S. tax code called the
> Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT.
>
> It's no mistake, says David Cay Johnston, author of "Perfectly Legal."
>
> "The Alternative Minimum Tax is like a parallel universe," says Johnston.
"Think
> about a "Star Trek" episode - there's the world here, and then there's
this
> parallel evil world over here."
>
> Cindy was beamed into that world when, like any taxpayer, she thought she
could
> write off the cost of her attorney. Under the AMT, though, everything that
went
> to her attorney was counted as income.
>
> "Everyone knows she doesn't get this income," says McFadden. "Congress
knows,
> the courts know, I know, the defendants know, the world knows, but
according to
> the IRS, it's her money."
>
> The U.S. District Court in Chicago was sympathetic. The judge knew an
award that
> size would automatically trigger the AMT, and in the end, would produce
what
> even he called an "unjust result." But his hands were tied. If there were
> shortcomings in the law, he said, it was up to Congress to fix, not the
courts.
>
> That's the same argument even the IRS makes.
>
> In fact, the IRS is expected to warn Congress this week that the AMT is
the
> biggest problem facing American taxpayers.
>
> "All along the system is an acknowledgement that this is broken, but we're
not
> fixing it - we don't have the will yet to fix it, and it is in Congress'
hands,"
> says Nina Olsen, of the IRS.
>
> And unless something changes, attorneys fear perfectly legitimate civil
rights
> cases may never be brought because winning may leave clients worse off
than
> losing.
>
> "To have to say to this person, 'Guess what, you're going to get screwed,
and I
> can't do a damn thing about it,' you feel powerless," says McFadden.
>
> "It doesn't seem right, and it doesn't seem fair that you can win a
victory and
> have to pay out of pocket," says Spina. "It doesn't seem like the American
way."
>
> It all leaves Spina wondering whether it would have been better to suffer
her
> harassment in silence than to have gone to court and be stuck with a tax
bill
> more than twice her income.

I rather suspect Dan will spin this like a top!

[lowflyer]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Consider this case recently presented on a network news show (can't
> > remember which): Woman wins 1.5 million dollar sexual harassment suit.
> > She gets approx. $330,000, lawyers get rest. Now she has to pay tax on
> > the whole award and has a net loss of $100,000! Don't know the details
> > of the tax law involved, but those are facts as presented on the the
> > show.
> >
> That wasn't Monica, was it?

No, in today's legal world Bill could have sued her for sexual
harrassment and won, but she didn't have deep pockets, only a deep...

[Tom Sixkiller]

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
> > "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Consider this case recently presented on a network news show (can't
> > > remember which): Woman wins 1.5 million dollar sexual harassment suit.
> > > She gets approx. $330,000, lawyers get rest. Now she has to pay tax on
> > > the whole award and has a net loss of $100,000! Don't know the details
> > > of the tax law involved, but those are facts as presented on the the
> > > show.
> > >
> > That wasn't Monica, was it?
>
> No, in today's legal world Bill could have sued her for sexual
> harrassment and won, but she didn't have deep pockets, only a deep...

I notice NOW has been unearthly quiet since then, as opposed to their
hysteria just prior.

[smackey]

Sigh...where to start? ...

Tom wrote "No, it will most emphatically NOT be tax free."

First, you'll notice that I said "Most or all" will be tax free. Some
definitely will be, perhaps not all, but perhaps all will be. Without
knowing the elements of damages awarded, the taxable/tax free portion
can't be determined by us.
Secondly, before you get into a debate on this point I suggest you
come armed with some knowledge. Take a look at U.S. Tax Code sec
104(a)(2).

Tom's second response was just a series of "HAHAHA..." Neither
intelligible, nor intelligent. No further comment needed.

His third comment, "You better laugh...at yourself", was similarly
well reasoned.

Bill Denton commented that the lawyers may have just fronted the
expenses, and that it is charged back to the client at the end. I
agree that the expenses are usually just fronted, but not always,
especially if the fee is sufficiently large, as it probably is here.
Even so, if $30,000 of expenses were "charged back" (i.e., repaid),
the net recovery to the Carnahan family would still be $2,470,000
(instead of $2,500,000). Remeber-my original post was in response to
the comment by Judah that "The only ones who make any money in these
stupid lawsuits is the lawyers." I'd say that $2,500,000 (or
$2,470,000, or even $2,000,000) to the Carnahans pretty well disproves
that.

Tom again hit us with a brilliant observation (I wonder what degree of
experience or qualification he has to make this statement)..."And
there is no incentive for a lawyer to minimize expenses." Take it
from someone who does know, having been a practicing attorney for over
28 years, those expenses are almost always "eaten" by the lawyer if he
loses. So, there most definitely is an incentive to be efficient.
While you might find an anecdotal story of an attorney filing suit
against a client for unreimbursed expenses, I can tell you that I have
never heard of it. Besides, if the attorny sued the client for th
expenses of a lost case, this is the very best way to invite a
malpractice cases as a counterclaim gainst the lawyer!

Judah then wrote: The lawsuit was stupid because there was "clear and
objective evidence that the defendants equipment was IN NO WAY
responsible... ." (Emphasis added) Well, apparantly not so!! If that
were the case, the suit would have been thrown out on summary
judgement, a common occurance with nonmeritorious lawsuits. Also, a
jury had to be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence (unanimous
verdict required in most civil suits in Federal Court; typically
two-thirds or three-fourths of the jury in state courts) that the PH
product was a, or the, contributing cause of the crash. Ergo... it
couldnt have been stupid, unless two thirds or more of the jury were
stupid (and judging from the degree of intelligence some posters
exhibit, there is apparantly no shortage of those.)

Judah, I dont know the case you refer to regarding the winner owing
money after taxes. However you should know that some recoveries are
taxable, e.g., some discrimination and other types of cases. Of
course, this was not such a case.

Also, I seriously doubt that the defense lawyers were paid seven
figure fees. Granted, I don't know (of course, I venture that you
don't either) but, again based on experience, the defense fees and
expenses may well have have not even reached six figures and if so,
probably low six figures. They are paid on an houly basis and get
paid, win or lose; the plaintiff lawyers get paid, typically although
not always, on a contingency fee. If they lose, they get zip. BTW,
the prevailing contingency fee is one-third, although some go to 0% or
even 50% (vary rare). On the other hand, some are lower than
one-third.