• November 24, 2014

Pinch-Points-Clear-Caution-Sign-S-2874Update (November 24, 2014): LEGAL MACHINERY.  PLAINTIFF’S LAWYER WARNING: if you take on any significant contingent fee litigation, there is a downside in addition the sunk costs of your uncompensated invested time. There is a real and present risk of being tagged with defendants’ substantial costs. ($37,000 in photocopy costs!?) (I note that defendant Home Depot was dismissed from the case shortly before trial. I imagine that might have happened in exchange for the payment of money to the Plaintiff. So maybe the net is not negative for the plaintiff and his lawyers?)

Previous post (October 24, 2014) (under subjectThull v. Techtronic: The Jury Reached a Verdict (for the Defense): Minnesota Litigator has followed the Thull v. Table Saw manufacturer litigation for a while now.

In fact, this lawsuit is attracting attention in far-away places for a while now.

Here are the Court’s final jury instructions.

How much do jury instructions matter? How much do they influence juror decision making? Some studies have suggested they matter little. Assuming they do matter, do these instructions nudge the fact-finder one way or the other way? We will never know for sure. Here is the verdict.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *