![]() Against Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order. Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order in advance of the deposition of the defendant driver seeking to prohibit Plaintiff from asking reptile theory questions, including hypotheticals, regarding knowledge and the purpose of various safety rules for tractor-trailer operation on the basis that such questioning would create confusion around the applicable duty of care. Navar was a wrongful death action premised on the tort of negligence arising out of a tractor-trailer accident. Jose Navar, 2020 WL 2214569, offers some hope to defendants seeking to cage the reptile at the outset of litigation, thereby avoiding, or at least limiting, its impact on the discovery process and settlements. ![]() A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in The Estate of Richard McNamara, III v. But, until recently, defendants have been left to fend for themselves in the face of plaintiffs’ Reptile Theory tactics throughout discovery and at mediation. Courts are weary of plaintiffs turning civil trials into a safety arena where broader societal issues are to be remedied. There is now ample authority to support motions in limine that prevent plaintiffs from encouraging jurors to view compensatory damages as punitive in nature. The pursuit of tort justice is hijacked by notions of protecting the community at large from danger by holding defendants accountable with punishing settlements and threats of nuclear verdicts.Ĭourts around the country are certainly wising up to the Reptile Theory and seeing it as the “Golden Rule” end run that it is. Plaintiffs pursuing this theory relentlessly attempt to point to and highlight the disparity between commitments to safety and the apparent lack of implementation through the use of mismanaged hypotheticals. ![]() Many mediations are consumed by plaintiffs touting deposition responses to Reptile Theory questions advancing the lofty higher calling of public safety. Sure, defendants can attempt to counter the Reptile Theory with arguments regarding admissibility backed by promising motions in limine, for which solid legal precedent exists, but the bad chemistry following a battering reptile deposition of a driver or safety manager is often indelible. Plaintiffs use of the “Reptile Theory” in trucking cases has undoubtedly led to many so-called nuclear verdicts but, and arguably worse, it has also provided a basis to leverage inflated settlements in countless more cases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |