We mostly see criminal cases in movies, television shows and the news media because they tend to have the twardiest facts and most on the line. In these cases, the dividing line is fairly clear. While the evidence may be convoluted, the defendant is always found guilty or not guilty. The same is not true in a civil lawsuit such as a wrongful death claim.

Civil court is where non-criminal cases are tried. The nature of the actions range from subjects such as real estate disputes to product liability claims such as whether Taser devices used by police are causing wrongful deaths. In the vast majority of these cases, the issue of fault is not a cut and dry situation. Instead, the jury is given the task of determining if a wrong occurred and, if so, who carried what percentage of responsibility. This is generally known as an apportionment of fault. Let’s look at an example.

One of the hot wrongful death areas being litigated now is the use of Taser devices by police wherein suspects are killed. For those not in the know, a Taser is an electronic device that shoots electricity into a person to incapacitate them. We are not talking a small dose. The average “shot” is 50,000 volts. To see the effect, you can pull up YouTube videos to see news reporters give it a try.

Regardless, Tasers are becoming popular with police departments. The number of deaths related to the use of Tasers is also on the rise. These are relating to wrongful death lawsuits in which juries are tasked with the question of determining if a wrongful death occurred and, if so, which parties are responsible. Taser Internation, the company in question, claims the Taser doesn’t have enough juice to kill people while the police more or less argue the suspect carries the risk.

The determination from case to case has been different. In general, Taser International is not found at fault. Instead, juries have found the deceased and police to share the fault with some split of responsibility. In such a situation, the jury will award a total damage figure and then a percentage such as 60 percent to the police and 40 percent to the defendant. When this apportionment occurs, the city behind the police then must pay 40 percent of the damages awarded.

The apportionment of fault can change dramatically from case to case. Taser International has escaped liability in the vast majority of cases, but not all. In one case, it was found 15 percent at fault in a six million dollar verdict. This effectively meant it was responsible for paying $900,000 in damages.

The apportionment of fault is something that is usually glossed over in reports in the media. In the situation above, they will often report a big, bold headline of a six million dollar verdict returned against a defendant when in fact apportionment has resulted in a much smaller amount.

By: Thomas Ajava

About the Author:

Satellite Pictures

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website