Question about a civil court judgment?

Question

I've long wondered about this and never understood it.  Maybe you can help.

On May 5, 1990 in Riverside (IL), a car went onto a baseball field during a T-ball game and hit many people, many of them 7 year-olds.  3 children died and others suffered severe injuries.  About 6 years later, I was a juror in the civil trial brought by family survivors against the city of Riverside for inadequately protecting the park against wayward cars.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-05-07/news/9002060522_1_riverside-police-accident-james-j-harasek

We ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for total of $2M, most of which was awarded to a girl who suffered a severe head trauma.

Immediately after the trial, some of the parents of the children killed very gratefully thanked us.  I thought this was odd because we did not award them any compensation.

Can you explain their gratification?  Did we provide closure?  Were there insurance ramifications?

PS: We were not allowed to do our own research during the trial.  But soon afterwards, I visited the park.  There are so many barriers now that a bulldozer would struggle to follow the path the car took on that fateful day.

davidmi711 · Accepted Answer

Probably a mixture of things. Sure, it provides some closure. Also, your finding would help their case if they were to also sue.

Beverly S · Answer

Not sure why they thanked you if their kids were killed & you awarded them nothing!!  I agree with awarding the girl who would have medical problems the rest of her life buy why would you not award those whose children were killed?????

, · Answer

The families were glad to get some type of monetary award however small it was.

curtisports2 · Answer

Talk to them and ask them why they felt they should thank you. How would any of us know?  It's my opinion that you were wrong in your decision. The city did nothing wrong. You and your fellow jurors cost the taxpayers of the city money out of their pockets because of something one person caused. The city did not drive that car onto the field. In addition, thousands and thousands of taxpayers, all over the country,  are being made to pay for barriers that have a tiny, tiny chance of ever being needed.

People have this ridiculous notion that life should carry absolutely no risk and that when something bad happens to somebody, somebody else should be made to pay for it that had zero to do with causing it.  Every day you get out of bed, you face risk.  When negligence is the direct cause of your loss, you deserve compensation. How was the city negligent?  No more negligent than any parent who allowed a child onto that field. If the city should have foreseen a vehicle going into the park and injuring or killing, please explain why a parent should not have foreseen the same thing, and kept their child off of that field?  In court, when both parties are equally negligent, the plaintiff gets nothing. You went by emotion, not by law.

Trending News

Question about a civil court judgment?

4 Answers