Source: https://troutmanwilliams.com/home/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:14:03+00:00

Document:
Russell Troutman contributed to the Florida Law Journal after reading Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation. His idea is that a sequel should be written “titled An Even Greater Generation in honor of the following generation our generation whose fights for justice and civil rights inspired monumental and lasting social changes that have improved life for all Americans.” Russell Troutman goes on to recount his memories of the struggles before and after the civil rights movement.
Florida law holds that when a person is injured from someone’s negligence, without whose negligence the injury would not have occurred, the negligent party is fully accountable. It matters not whether negligence is small or gross.
Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, the test is whether the individual negligence of two or more persons was the cause of the accident, without either of which the accident would not have occurred. This is simple justice, but the big-business lobby, represented by Associated Industries, is waging a battle to eliminate the doctrine of joint and several liability evolved from the wisdom of ages.
The commercial world rhetorically asks, “Why should a party 10 percent at fault be responsible for 100 percent of the damages? The better question is: Why should a negligent party be relieved from responsibility when his 10 percent negligence caused the accident?
Joint and several liability also applies in criminal law, too. In a bank robbery, the person holding the flashlight for the safe cracker is deemed equally guilty as the more skilled work of the safe cracker. If this example were a civil case, Associated Industries would argue the flashlight man should receive jail time of 10 percent of that received by the safe cracker who actually opened the safe and bagged the money.
More graphically, the felony/ murder rule in criminal law, just as joint and several liability in civil law, places equal blame on two holdup men, one of whom shoots the storekeeper and the other of whom merely cleaned out the cash register. No apportionment of blame is attempted; both men will be charged with murder in the first degree.
Associated Industries of Florida represents commercial vehicles. How successful would an organization called Associated Criminals of Florida be in lobbying a statute compelling the court to apportion fault between criminals and requiring imposition of the sentence pursuant to that apportionment?
Two negligent vehicles coming together and paralyzing our bodies without adequate remedy should concern us most. We should be less concerned about the arbitrary, if not capricious, percentaging of responsibility between two wrongdoers, each of whose negligence caused the accident, or worried about deep-pocket issues or the overly vaunted spin of frivolous suits.
The priority of the greater public interest is to deliver justice both to the victims of crime and negligence. The greater public interest is not served by easing up on criminal or civil violators whose joint or several (individual) violations of the law wreak havoc on life and property.
The lawyers of Troutman, Williams, Irvin, Green, & Helms, P.A. have been recognized by Martindale-Hubbell as preeminent lawyers for their high professional legal standards and ethics. This honor was published in Martindale-Hubbell’s 2005 Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers. Receiving this award acknowledges that our lawyers maintain a high level of legal ability while adhering to the professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability and diligence.
Troutman Williams is proud to receive this recognition which results from its main focus – commitment to the client. Our high level of legal ability stems not only from the knowledge of our lawyers but also the vast experience of an established firm. Troutman Williams has been an iconic Central Florida law firm, representing the people of Florida for over forty years. The life of our firm has been grounded in the recognition that our lawyers work for the client; not the other way around. With this in mind, our lawyers keep clients informed of their case on a regular basis. Our lawyers fight hard for clients, knowing that the outcome of our representation can have huge impacts on the lives of our clients.
“Congress shall have the power to declare war.” So states Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, of the Constitution. A strict constructionist approach to the constitution grants no concurrent power for the president to declare war.
Since our nation’s origin, presidents asked Congress for and were given declarations of war 11 times. The first was against Britain in 1812, and the last few were against Japan, Germany and their allies in the 1940s.
With Iraq, the president pushed through the 107th Congress a resolution authorizing him to use force if diplomatic efforts failed to force Saddam Hussein to relinquish his putative weapons of mass destruction. The president did not consider the resolution a declaration of war. To the contrary, he told Congress, “approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means, “America speaks with one voice.” The president did not ask for a declaration of war, did not intend to receive a declaration of war, nor was the resolution called a declaration of war. Yet, we went to war anyway.
Such resolute and stirring phraseology is not characteristic of those declarations with which Congress has abdicated its war-making responsibilities. These resolutions are adroitly phrased, so that if the war is successful, Congress can share credit. But if the war proves a mistake, legislators can tell their constituents all they meant was to give the president a vote of confidence to make the decision.
Graham vote against the resolution, but his was a voice crying in the wilderness.
The issue here is more than semantics. We are better served if Congress, local representatives of all factions, take the grave and sobering step of assessing, as Graham says, the broad range of each proposed war’s possibilities, including estimates of the minimal cost of lives, the minimal time required, and its economic impact. This process inevitably requires each member of Congress to make a personal decision whether the gains of war are worth its heart wrenching sacrifices. Had that been done regarding Iraq, this war of dubious results might have been avoided.
Our constitutional system of governance does not include presidential wars within the wide grasp of the executive branch, and no act of Congress can amend, modify or veto the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
A robust national debate is long overdue whether the nation should require formal declarations of war. There was wisdom in the Founding Fathers’ stipulation that only Congress should have the power to declare war.
Rather than letting that wisdom slide silently into the grave, shouldn’t we, as a nation, be openly and vigorously debating whether to return to the Constitution?
Strictly Speaking, What’s the Essence of Judicial Label?
When President Bush nominated John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, he announced John Roberts to be a strict constructionist. The phrase, “strict constructionist” means implementing the precise words of the Constitution in regard to the original intent of the Founders. Anything other than that is judicial activism and legislating, so court critics say.
To the contrary, Dred Scott v. Sandford, rather than an example of judicial activism, is a dead ringer for strict construction. In that case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared no state or territory could constitutionally prohibit slavery without contravening the meaning and original intent of the Constitution.
Justice Taney cited provisions directly dealing with slavery. Article I, Section 9, prohibits Congress from interfering with the importation of slaves before 1808. Article IV, Section 2, requires states to return escaped slaves to their owners. Although not mentioned by Taney, Article I, Section 2, provided a slave should be counted as three-fifths of a person in apportioning state representation in the House of Representatives.
These three provisions sanctioning slavery led Taney to the conclusion slavery was clearly contemplated in the Constitution, and neither Congress, nor states, nor territories could legally prohibit slavery without violating the supreme law of the land.
The Dred Scott decision convulsed our nation to a level only war could resolve. Not only does Taney win the prize when it comes to strict construction, he wins first place when it comes to original intent of the Founders as a measuring rod to interpret the Constitution.
Taney was telling America the Constitution says what it says, and if we don’t like it, amend it. In fact, it was amended after the Civil War with the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment, which gave us the “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws” clauses.
In contrast to the strict construction approach preferred by Bush is the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which declared racially segregated schools a violation of “the equal protection of the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet, some constitutional theorists attack Brown v. Board of Education as judicial activism, the very thing President Bush rejects.
Indeed, it is accurate to say the court grafted into the 14th Amendment its unanimous opinion that segregated schools were inherently unequal. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who wrote the opinion, admitted it was not possible to decide whether the authors of the 14th Amendment intended to ban segregation.
Similarly to Dred Scott, Brown caused a tumult. “Impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren” signs dotted the highways and landscapes throughout the land, especially in the south. Yet Brown v. Board of Education is so irreversibly entrenched in our ethos, one wonders why it took so long to get there.
Since there are no specific provisions in the Constitution dealing with segregation, Brown v. Board of Education is a prime example of judicial activism at its zenith. Likewise, the right to remain silent when arrested, the right to counsel as prerequisite to a fair trial, as well as racial integration in public places, are all examples of judicial activism grafted into the First, Fifth, and 14th Amendments.
Ironically, the term strict construction is an oxymoron. When the wording in the Constitution is specific, such as Congress has the power to coin money or establish post offices, there is no need for construction. On the other hand, if the phrase being studied is a general platitude like “equal protection of the laws,” then it cannot be strictly construed by the wording itself and must depend upon the court to define the parameters of that phrase.
We can ask nothing further of the gentleman, nor expect a better appointment from this conservative president. If I were a member of the Senate, I would unhesitatingly vote to confirm him.
The judiciary is indispensable to our successful democracy. It is the best antidote to abuse of power even when it is the abuser of power. It is an integral part to separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
The validity of this premise depends upon judicial independence from the majority, as well as the fluctuations of the legislative and executive branches. The judiciary’s mission can be narrowly defined as aligning statutes and government practices with the Constitution. This is essentially the broader policy statement of our nation’s governing principles.
A good example among many is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., when beginning in 1954, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that stopped the practice of neo-slavery in this country. After 100 years of legislative and executive branch inertia, the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection of the Laws” finally brought into practice what Thomas Jefferson pontificated in theory in the Declaration of Independence.
There has always been tension within the separation of powers. Our governor pushed through a bill allowing him to overrule the judicial branch in the Terri Schiavo case. Imagine President Dwight D. Eisenhower pushing through Congress a law empowering him to reverse Brown v. Board of Education. The idea that the judiciary should defer to the legislature breaches the doctrine of separation of powers among three co-equal branches of government.
There are current threats to judicial independence on the horizon.
By withholding full funding for the court system, 1 million criminal cases, 1.2 million civil cases, and a half-million cases involving children, family, and elders (a typical annual disposition) will not be completely handled. Currently, 80 state judicial vacancies are the victims of refusal to fund. Inasmuch as courtrooms are open to the media and public with every word reported by court reporters, the idea of state installed cameras beamed on judges to monitor their conduct is unnecessary and also inimical to an independent judiciary. It might be helpful to lawyers to study the idiosyncrasies of the judges, and by so doing be better able to appeal to their natural instincts. This questionable benefit is outweighed by the detriment.
Two pennies of every Florida tax dollar support the judicial branch of government. Indeed, we get our money’s worth. The money is there if our legislative and executive branches perform their duty to fund it. We must not tolerate any system that abridges the Bill of Rights in favor of economy.
Without an impartial forum to seek a remedy, establish a duty, enforce a right, repair a wrong, and punish an evil, the lower side of human nature will govern, and no law the legislative branch can legislate or the executive branch can execute will restore harmony to that inherent judicial system that resides within every human breast.
A major point has been overlooked regarding the medical malpractice insurance crisis. Current law gives the medical industry a $250,000 cap on intangible damages (for example, if someone must live the rest of her life paralyzed) when an offer to arbitrate damages is made. If the offer is rejected, the jury’s power to return a verdict is limited to $350,000.
At the time the current cap was enacted, lobbyists argued the cap would stabilize insurance rates. The fact that malpractice insurance crisis is more intense than ever validates the Sentinel’s several editorials that caps are unlikely to reduce rates.
The difference between the existing cap and the proposed legislation is that, under the proposed legislation, the medical industry is not required to offer arbitration to enjoy the cap. Some hospitals have availed themselves of the current cap, but the majority of medical providers prefer to risk even meritorious claims before a jury in hopes of paying nothing rather than offer to arbitrate, which implies payment of some compensation not to exceed $250,000 for pain and suffering.
In theory, the medical industry has the unilateral power to restrict all medical-malpractice claims to a few hundred thousand dollars for pain and suffering and never suffer multimillion dollar verdicts by simply offering to arbitrate. Based on Florida law, the patient is required to present testimony of malpractice from a disinterested medical expert before a claim letter can be written to the negligent provider.
This means that most if not all medical-malpractice claims are at least debatable. Offering to arbitrate is not an admission of liability, and if arbitration is rejected, the medical industry may still fight liability tooth and tong when it goes before the jury.
We are not in a medical-malpractice crisis, but rather we are in a malpractice-insurance crisis. We do not have a judicial system out of control, and claims are not running doctors out of the state. It is insurance rates running doctors out of state.
It is surprising to me that loud rhetoric is not directed towards the fact that state and federal constitutions guarantee jury trial in civil cases. Neither the state nor federal constitution condition the right to jury trial to cases involving less than $250,000.
The apathy of ignoring our constitution to accommodate insurance rates is particularly puzzling when the proposed cap on damages applies to people suing insurance companies, but no caps are suggested when insurance companies sue people or, for that matter, when corporations sue corporations for the last farthing.
Now for the solution. The solution is self-insurance. During my term as an officer of The Florida Bar, when legal malpractice rates escalated, The Florida Bar self-insured. Insurance companies got the message and lawyers no longer have a problem with malpractice-insurance rates.
On the other hand, if the goal of medical industry is simply to avoid accountability notwithstanding the merits, then none of the arguments I present here apply.
SANFORD – A Chuluota woman crippled in a 1998 traffic accident has won a $4.3 million judgment against her own automobile insurance company. A six-member Seminole County jury ruled in favor of Pauline Giaccone, 54, of Chuluota. A doctor testified she had lost virtually all use of her left shoulder after a two-car crash in Oviedo. Giaccone had paid for $400,000 worth of uninsured motorist coverage from State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., but the company was willing to pay only a small portion of that, said Russell Troutman, one of her attorneys.
The article last Sunday about Circuit Judge Joe Baker interviewing his son-in-law and a computer-consultant friend to help him decide whether to reduce a $2 million jury verdict against Disney Vacation Club Management Corp. to $1,000 misses the point.
The issue is not whether the “judiciary is prohibited from informing itself,” as Judge Baker states.
Nor is the issue whether “judges are supposed to make decisions based solely on the information that lawyers provide during the case,” as the article stated.
Rather, the issue is whether a litigant’s constitutional right to due process of law should be repealed in favor of private interviews by the judge.
When a jury, after hearing all the evidence, returns a verdict in the amount of $2 million and the judge reduces the verdict to $l,000 based on private interviews outside the courtroom, that is denial of the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial, secured by Article 7 of the Bill of Rights.
When a judge leaves the courtroom and takes unsworn testimony from his son-in-law and computer-consultant friend and uses that out-of-court evidence as a basis for his decision, the litigants are denied a public trial, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
The jury system contemplates parties for both sides of a dispute presenting evidence in a public forum where the parties can see, hear and test it. The jurors are instructed to base a verdict on the evidence and not discuss the case with anyone – including his or her spouse – or read or listen to news reports. When a judge goes behind the scene in private and gathers evidence, he is violating the very instruction he gives to the jury.
Imagine a jury verdict in a criminal case being set aside by the judge on the basis of his private investigation that the live witnesses who testified at trial were all wrong. If Judge Baker is convicted of violating judicial ethics in his upcoming public trial, it would be an irony indeed if, after Baker has hired a lawyer to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the decision was based on private interviews outside the courtroom. I have a feeling that his lawyer would appeal and win a reversal as Judge Baker was reversed when he did private interviews.
Under both the civil and criminal rules of procedure, the judge has the power to summon experts as court witnesses to educate the court. In addition, the judge may participate in the questioning of the witnesses actually called by the lawyers for further elaboration.
Conducting private discussions with people outside the trial setting and using that as a basis for the ultimate outcome is an abnegation of the major tenets of constitutional due process of law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.