The verdict in the most recent bus accident case put blame on the pedestrian by finding for the bus driver and company. The jury assigned only 8% of the fault on the bus driver, a finding that makes little sense and assigned 92% of the fault to the pedestrian. The DART lawyers did their normal show and tell with apologizing for the man's injuries but that's completely ridiculous. I'm not even sure why the court allows an apology. What difference does it make that the lawyers come into court and say they are sorry. Everyone knows they aren't otherwise they would have visited the partially disemboweled pedestrian while hospitalized. And even if the lawyers were so-so-sorry so what? What has that got to do with liability or damages? It's simply a way to play to the jurors emotions in favor of the defense. A defense lawyer's emotions are not a part of the evidence and shouldn't be a part of the considerations.
In this case the pedestrian gets nothing. When the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendants they get nothing in Iowa. So if you're 50.1% at fault you walk away with nothing.
One defense attorney was crafty enough to argue the wig the man was wearing could have interfered with his ability to maintain a proper lookout. They would have to argue this in order for the fact the man was wearing a wig to be relevant. Of course would they argue that if it were a woman? Or is the point to prejudice the plaintiff's case with the plaintiff being different? The plaintiff appears to have been dressed as women would be expected to dress in Western society. It would be interesting to see if the Plaintiff filed motions in limine; a legal pleading filed to keep certain evidence out of the evidence. There is a tremendous amount of prejudice against people with odd sexual preferences such as a male cross dresser. Would they do the same and would you as a jury feel the same if the plaintiff were a woman dressed in slacks and a baseball cap?
Another case of justice fooled.
See also the Register's earlier article Jury considers $2.1 million lawsuit against DART, driver