Getting Sued

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Pythagoras

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
269
Reaction score
1
Quick question. Is it possible for someone to sue you for future wages you will earn when you finish medical school and become a doctor? If there are laws regarding this, do they vary state to state, and where might i find information on this? i have done some searches but have not come up with any satisfactory answers, so i'm looking for some insight from anyone if they happen to know.
 
Yes it is possible, just look at OJ Simpson and do you remember Bernard Getz? He was the guy on the NYC subway who shot a couple of kids who were threatening him. One of the kids was paralyzed, but then turned around and sued HIM for violating his civil rights or whatever. 🙄

Anyway, the jury awarded the kid a certain percentage of Getz' future earnings for the rest of his life. Crazy, but there it is. Lawyers ... what are we gonna do ?

As for OJ, any earnings he has in the rest of his life have to go to pay the settlement of like, $37 million dollars to the families of the two people he killed. His pension is what he lives on, it can not be garnished.
 
Pythagoras said:
Quick question. Is it possible for someone to sue you for future wages you will earn when you finish medical school and become a doctor? If there are laws regarding this, do they vary state to state, and where might i find information on this? i have done some searches but have not come up with any satisfactory answers, so i'm looking for some insight from anyone if they happen to know.

Just to clarify and correct the other poster, in eg. the OJ Simpson case, the suit wasn't for "future wages", it was for a lump amount of money. OJ didn't have it, so the judgement sticks around until he pays it, which effectively means that if he earns money, his victims family take it (his pension and FL home were previously protected by various homestead act and asset protection laws, and thus untouchable for these purposes). That's the situation you frequently see -- a judgement is granted against a defendant, and then if no other asset is readily seizable, then wages are garnished to pay off the judgement -- the judgement is not per se concerned with the wages, and payment from another source is equally satisfying.
However, in terms of future wages, you do see this all the time in the case of divorce -- for example the spouse who assists in putting her husband through school only to get dumped, in some states (it is state by state) may have a claim for as much as half of the future contemplated earnings of the medical degree. So yes, it is possible.
If you have a pressing legal need to know more details, I suggest you consult an attorney in the state in which you anticipate being sued. I am not aware of any good laymen-friendly texts on judgements and wage garnishment (most are written in significant legalese), so self study might be difficult.
 
i believe you can also get sued for future wages from an auto accident. that's why you can carry a decent amount of liability and pay a settlement instead of them going after you for future wages and more
 
definitely divorce.

Unfortunately usually applies to women getting money from men.
 
gdk said:
i believe you can also get sued for future wages from an auto accident. that's why you can carry a decent amount of liability and pay a settlement instead of them going after you for future wages and more

Not exactly. Again, the judgement resulting from an auto accident is going to usually be a single finite lump award amount (eg. $10,000,000) -- but where insurance coverage is inadequate and the person doesn't have attachable assets, the wages are just going to be the next viable source of payment of that amount until the lump is paid off. The suit or award amount in such case never involves or is contingent on "future wages", (as in OJ Simpson's case, if you never have unshielded future earnings you never have to pay) but once a plaintiff has a judgement in hand, he can always go back to court and get the court to garnish wages until the judgement is paid. But this garnishment is after the fact -- the judgement was never contingent on the amount of, or whether you would ever have any, future income. Thus generally auto accident suits are not suits for "future wages" per se, they are suits for a single lump money judgement, to be paid from whatever source or sources the defendant may have, which may include future wages. A divorce case, as I suggested in a prior post could be different -- where the actual contemplated amount of the judgement could itself be a portion of future wages earned by a degree, and thus one's contemplated future medical earnings might be directly part of the judgement award, not the subject of a later garnishment. There may be other forms of suit with future earnings judgements would be involved in determining the award, but auto accidents probably wouldn't be one of them. Hope that clarifies.
 
Thanks guys, very informative posts 😀
 
I thought that there was a 10 year statute of limitation subject for renewal for future earnings? That is... if you are awarded a settlement to receive future earnings from someone and they make nothing for 10 years, you actually have to go back to court and request another 10 year settlement??
 
Thought you guys might find this interesting.

1. Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

2. Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next-door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3. A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hub caps.

4. A. Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 a! after she slipped on a soft drink spill and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

5. Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

6. A jury of her peers awarded Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, $780,000 after breaking her ankle by tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

7. This year's favorite could easily be Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete *****s buying their recreation vehicles
 
The "court cases" from the previous post are all fabrications from an internet chain letter.

See: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

or: http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html


davidthegnome said:
Thought you guys might find this interesting.

1. Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

2. Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next-door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

3. A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hub caps.

4. A. Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 a! after she slipped on a soft drink spill and broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

5. Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't reenter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

6. A jury of her peers awarded Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, $780,000 after breaking her ankle by tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson's son.

7. This year's favorite could easily be Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete *****s buying their recreation vehicles
 
Peterock said:
I thought that there was a 10 year statute of limitation subject for renewal for future earnings? That is... if you are awarded a settlement to receive future earnings from someone and they make nothing for 10 years, you actually have to go back to court and request another 10 year settlement??
You are using a lot of legal terms and not really correctly. A settlement is not the same as a judgement award-- a settlement means the plaintiff and defendant have come to an agreement -- the judge or jury did not have to come to a conclusion. Settlements are agreed to and granted, not awarded (The latter terms connotes something being forced upon one of the parties, while a settlement is mutual). A settlement is a contract, and thus its terms are what is binding on the parties. Usually "statutes of limitations" are time periods during which one must file a claim, or else they lose that right to sue. If the initial claim is timely filed, and a judgement is entered, then the amount is now "owed" to the plaintiff -- there is no limitation period involved until the "judgement" is paid in full. There might be a time for renewal for wage garnishment orders or alimony, but that wouldn't be a "statute of limitations", and would be a state by state thing -- not a blanket 10 year rule. If however the parties entered a settlement (i.e. a contract), there might be provisions in that settlement as to when things could be reconsidered (eg. after 10 years) - but those would have been negotiated -- it is not a court award, and "statute of limitation" would not be an accurate term for this. There may be states which require settlements involving wages to be renewed, but I doubt that is the same in every state -- and wouldn't apply to payment of judgements (as in the OJ case), just to settlements. And again, I'm not sure outside of a divorce situation when you would ever see someone "awarded ... to receive future earnings", but they could certainly agree to this contractually via a settlement.
If there are any other former lawyers on here who disagree with me, please chime in if I've misspoken -- during my practice years I didn't deal with the litigation side of law (thank goodness).
 
Fair enough. I am not a former lawyer, law student, etc. I hate being corrected though, so the next time you post false information in preallo, which you've done a lot, you're going down. 😀


Law2Doc said:
You are using a lot of legal terms and not really correctly. A settlement is not the same as a judgement award-- a settlement means the plaintiff and defendant have come to an agreement -- the judge or jury did not have to come to a conclusion. Settlements are agreed to and granted, not awarded (The latter terms connotes something being forced upon one of the parties, while a settlement is mutual). A settlement is a contract, and thus its terms are what is binding on the parties. Usually "statutes of limitations" are time periods during which one must file a claim, or else they lose that right to sue. If the initial claim is timely filed, and a judgement is entered, then the amount is now "owed" to the plaintiff -- there is no limitation period involved until the "judgement" is paid in full. There might be a time for renewal for wage garnishment orders or alimony, but that wouldn't be a "statute of limitations", and would be a state by state thing -- not a blanket 10 year rule. If however the parties entered a settlement (i.e. a contract), there might be provisions in that settlement as to when things could be reconsidered (eg. after 10 years) - but those would have been negotiated -- it is not a court award, and "statute of limitation" would not be an accurate term for this. There may be states which require settlements involving wages to be renewed, but I doubt that is the same in every state -- and wouldn't apply to payment of judgements (as in the OJ case), just to settlements. And again, I'm not sure outside of a divorce situation when you would ever see someone "awarded ... to receive future earnings", but they could certainly agree to this contractually via a settlement.
If there are any other former lawyers on here who disagree with me, please chime in if I've misspoken -- during my practice years I didn't deal with the litigation side of law (thank goodness).
 
Peterock said:
Fair enough. I am not a former lawyer, law student, etc. I hate being corrected though, so the next time you post false information in preallo, which you've done a lot, you're going down. 😀

I'm not aware that I've knowingly posted false info in preallo -- to the extent I've been corrected (and I concede I'm sometimes wrong -- it sometimes happens) I always apologize and own up to it... Am happy to be corrected when I am wrong. 😕
 
Good corrections Law2Doc! I knew the basic facts but that law school background, and attention to detail eluded me ... 🙂

What a great combination, law background and medicine. I think we're going to need some smart docs pretty soon when we all get out and start dealing with the mess we now have of litigous patients, overblown jury awards, etc. Dudes! we are gonna need some SERIOUS help on those issues ... 😱
 
Top