ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Tampa Bay Personal Injury Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Tampa Bay Personal Injury Law

Taser Back in the News

By Joe Saunders

ADVERTISEMENTS

A few weeks ago, Taser International was ordered to pay $1,423,000 in attorney fees as a result of a product's liability verdict in California. On June 7, 2008, the jury in the case of Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW (United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)) found in favor of the family of Robert C. Heston. Specifically, the jury found that Taser International failed to warn of the risks of prolonged deployment of the stun gun. Heston suffered cardiac arrest and later died as a result of the Taser deployment.

The attorney fees decision was based on California Private Attorneys General Statute California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5. According to the statute, in order to obtain attorney fees in such a case, the lawyers had to prove four things: 1) a plaintiff must be a successful party in an action resulting in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interests, 2) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, must have been conferred on the general public or a broad class of persons, 3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement must transcend the litigant's personal interest in the controversy, and 4) such fees should not, in the interest of justice, be paid out of the recovery.

The federal judge in the case, James Ware found "notoriety of Plaintiff's first-of-its-kind verdict, in some circumstances, has prompted a number of TASER customers and prospective customers to consider the risk of repeated and prolonged Taser electrical charges on individuals in an excited or delirious state.” This satisfied the significant benefit clause according to the Judge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Joe Saunders

Full post as published by Tampa Bay Personal Injury Law on February 07, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0144 secs (new cache)