Recently in Celebrity Category

I was asked the following "Ask Andrew" question:

 "Does Jennifer Hudson have the right to pursue a wrongful death case as a result of the horrendous murders of her Mother, brother and nephew?"

The short, but not so simple, answer is Yes, she and her family have the right to bring a wrongful death case.  A family member has the right to bring a wrongful death case when a loved one has died as a result of the negligence of others.  In addition to negligence, a claim can be pursued if the death was caused intentionally, by an assault or, as in this instance, a murder - this is known as an "intentional tort."

Ms. Hudson and her family would face a few problems which would likely preclude a successful case. As of this moment, the family is not certain who committed the murders.  However, once the murderer is identified, it is highly unlikely that the person has the money to pay a settlement or verdict obtained in the lawsuit. In a negligence case there is insurance to pay for death, in an intentional tort there is not. 

So, yes, Ms. Hudson and her family have a case that they would likely win, but there would be no money to pay if they are successful

My heart goes out to Jennifer Hudson and her family.

Isn't it a shame? Poor little Gary Coleman.  How miserable must he be that he has to assault a fan who wants to take a picture from his cell phone?  Reports from Payson City, Utah reveal that a personal injury lawsuit has just been filed there against the former Diff'rent Strokes star.  Coleman was charged with misdemeanors in Payson City Justice Court including class B reckless driving and an infraction of disorderly conduct. A finding of guilt in the criminal proceedings will certainly help the civil case. To recover money from Coleman, the fan will need to establish that he suffered physical and/or emotional injuries as a result of the assault. What's Gary Coleman doing in Utah anyway???????

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that:JENNIFER Lopez   is being sued - along with her husband Marc Anthony - by a female flight attendant who says she was attacked by their dog Floyd on a plane.

Pop and movie stunner J-Lo  took the guard dog on a private flight from New York to Los Angeles, during which it allegedly pounced on Lisa Wilson. Wilson, 40, claims she fell over and injured her back during the incident two years ago and is now unable to work. As a result she wants $5 million in damages from J-Lo who gave birth to twins earlier this year.

In order for Wilson to win this case, she will have to prove that (1) the dog was know to be dangerous and previously bite someone and (2) she suffered real injuries documented by medical records.  This is no $5Million case - that's for sure.  But, if she really injured her back and was kept out of work, there will be something coming her way from the booty shaking diva.

The verdict is in. The jury has spoken. The cardiologist and radiologist did not commit malpractice in their treatment of John Ritter. They didn't cause his death. Was the jury's decision a correct one? Maybe. Maybe not. Medical malpractice cases are extremely difficult to win. Statistically, about 80% are lost. The reason is simple. The majority of jurors hold doctors in very high regard and are not quick to find fault unless the facts are egregious (i.e. amputating the wrong leg, failing to read a lab result that shows a finding of cancer, etc.) As I explained at the start of this trial on Headline News, it always comes down to a battle of the experts for each side. In this case, the doctors experts apparently won the battle - the jurors believed their view more than the views of the family's experts. Often times, jurors will be inclined to go with the expert for the side that they want to help. If the doctor being sued has good credentials and makes a good witness, the jury will usually want to help the doctor. On the other hand, if the doctor is an awful witness (arrogant, timid, poor credentials) and the family/plaintiff is extremely sympathetic, a jury will tend to go with the family/plaintiff's experts. I'd be willing to bet the farm, that the doctors being sued in this case made great witnesses. Inevitably, injustice occurs as often as justice is served - good, legitimate cases are lost all the time. The bottom line is this: people have a right to sue when there is a good faith basis for believing that malpractice occurred. The Ritter family had a strong case. That's why they obtained $14Million dollars from various other doctors and hospitals before the start of this trial. Trust me, that kind of money is not handed over unless there is a legitimate cause for concern. However, the jury has spoken and the Ritter family will have to live with its verdict. Unless, of course, they choose to appeal...