I have been thinking about much frivolous defense lately, and I'll probably later post more on this topic, but I wanted to share a very fast, Ford Motor Company v. Benítez only to this case. It is opinion of 2007 confirmed monetary sanctions against a lawyer, the reasons for the defence submitted that were not in fact the Supreme Court of Virginia knew it.

The lawyer claims that he should be used just stating the defense, which he thought the facts arise. Problem is, that he was the same lawyer, the case was before as after the discovery was not suitable. Meaning: he already had all the facts of the case but still went ahead and tried to include more affirmative defense. This was a products liability RS using a faulty airbag. A few of the defence as "totally unfounded" were those contributory negligence, assumption of risk, negligence of third parties, failure, a cause of action, to reduce State lack of notice about the warranty claims, and failure to damage. At the hearing right to strike this defence the sanctioned lawyer conceded that "In this defence was not sufficient facts."

Lately, I appear in a lot of these defense run, where there are insufficient facts. Later more, stay tuned.

Message:

Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.

Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]

View the original article here