 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laughlin v. Fillers9/22/2005
f the accident. Mr. Byrd testified that he did not know that Plaintiff's wrecker had been wrecked and was inoperable when Plaintiff purchased it. Nor was he aware of how many miles Plaintiff's wrecker had on it at the time of the accident. Mr. Byrd admitted that the mileage would be something to consider when determining the value of a wrecker. Mr. Byrd admitted that his estimate was for a good 1989 Ford F350 four wheel drive with a good wrecker apparatus and not for the specific one that Plaintiff owned. He further admitted that the estimate he gave "was approximate. * Retail. That'd be a little high. * As a retail price."
Mr. Byrd also testified that if he had known Plaintiff's wrecker had a hundred and twenty-nine thousand miles on it, his estimate "would still be twenty, or in there." However, Mr. Byrd stated: "Just the [wrecker] unit itself is worth more than the truck," as the wrecker unit can be unbolted and set on to another vehicle chassis. Mr. Byrd testified that it would cost approximately $1,500 to separate the wrecker unit from the chassis and attach it to another vehicle. Mr. Byrd testified that a wrecker unit similar to Plaintiff's in good operating condition would be worth ten thousand dollars and testified that Plaintiff's wrecker unit "was worth that."
Marcus Kyker, another friend of Plaintiff's, testified that in 2000, he sold a wrecker similar to Plaintiff's in good condition for six thousand dollars.
During the trial, Plaintiff responded to some questions asked by defense counsel by stating that he could not remember. Plaintiff then stated: "See, if these things are settled every ten years, you might not have such a hard time remembering, but sometimes they go a long time." In response to Plaintiff's statement, defense counsel then asked Plaintiff if he knew how many times his attorney had asked for continuances. Plaintiff's counsel raised no objection to this question or the answer elicited. Later during the trial, Plaintiff's counsel questioned Plaintiff regarding the fact that Plaintiff had to hire a new attorney because his first attorney became a judge. Plaintiff's counsel asked Plaintiff if the fact that the first attorney became a judge caused any continuances. Defense counsel interjected that the record would reflect no continuances based upon this ground. Plaintiff's counsel then raised an objection to defense counsel testifying. The Trial Court instructed the parties to "move on" and they did.
At another point during the trial, defense counsel questioned Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff's alleged psychological injury resulting from the accident. Plaintiff's counsel announced that they would stipulate that the accident did not cause Plaintiff psychological injury. Defense counsel stated: "I can understand him wanting to sandpaper his client now before the jury, but that's not the position he's been taking for the last eight years." The Trial Court then instructed counsel to approach the bench and the remainder of this discussion took place out of the presence of the jury. During this bench conference, Plaintiff's attorney stated that he didn't mention Plaintiff's psychological injury in his opening and was not going to mention it in closing because he didn't ask about it on direct. As the discussion continued, the Trial Court, as best we can tell from the transcript that we have, stated that it remembered Plaintiff testifying on direct about his nerves having been affected by the accident and that was enough to allow defense counsel to get into that area on cross- examination.
At the close of proof, the Trial Court directed a verdict on the issue of liability in favor of Plaintiff. Despite this directed verdict on liability, defen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|