Facts:
In 2010, Adwoa Gyabaah was hit by a by a bus owned by Rivlab Transportation Corporation. After the accident, Gyabaah hired; Jeffrey Aronsky as her attorney to represent her in court. They would be in negotiations with Rivlab, their insurance company: National Casualty Company, and their attorneys. Early on, Gyabaah agreed to pay Aronsky a contingency fee of one-third the of her finalized recovery. In late August, 2010 Aronsky presented the plaintiffs personal injury action on their behalf against Rivlab. Later in October, the defendant proposed their $1 million policy limit for settlements. Aronsky explained the proposal to the plaintiff, who decided to accept their settlement. Later that month Aronsky constructed a general release statement regarding the plaintiff accepting the defendants …show more content…
Since there is no proof that this ever occurred, the action was never settled. Also, since both attorney’s put work into the case, they would be compensated on a “pro rata basis” instead of Aronsky receiving one-third of the original $1 million settlement.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:
There was one dissenter in this case, Justice Richard T. Andrias. He stated that Gyabaah shouldn’t be allowed to change her stance on the original settlement just because she can get more money using another attorney. He continued by saying that a change of heart is insufficient and a settlement agreement will not be set aside just because the plaintiff has decided that the claim is worth more.
Comments:
After reading this entire case brief about Adwoa Gyabaah getting hit by a bus, I did not agree with the court’s decision of not rewarding Aronsky the one-third of the initial settlement offer in the case. My disagreement on the decision revolves around the moral aspect of what happened, rather than just the legality of the
In 2010, Adwoa Gyabaah was hit by a by a bus owned by Rivlab Transportation Corporation. After the accident, Gyabaah hired; Jeffrey Aronsky as her attorney to represent her in court. They would be in negotiations with Rivlab, their insurance company: National Casualty Company, and their attorneys. Early on, Gyabaah agreed to pay Aronsky a contingency fee of one-third the of her finalized recovery. In late August, 2010 Aronsky presented the plaintiffs personal injury action on their behalf against Rivlab. Later in October, the defendant proposed their $1 million policy limit for settlements. Aronsky explained the proposal to the plaintiff, who decided to accept their settlement. Later that month Aronsky constructed a general release statement regarding the plaintiff accepting the defendants …show more content…
Since there is no proof that this ever occurred, the action was never settled. Also, since both attorney’s put work into the case, they would be compensated on a “pro rata basis” instead of Aronsky receiving one-third of the original $1 million settlement.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:
There was one dissenter in this case, Justice Richard T. Andrias. He stated that Gyabaah shouldn’t be allowed to change her stance on the original settlement just because she can get more money using another attorney. He continued by saying that a change of heart is insufficient and a settlement agreement will not be set aside just because the plaintiff has decided that the claim is worth more.
Comments:
After reading this entire case brief about Adwoa Gyabaah getting hit by a bus, I did not agree with the court’s decision of not rewarding Aronsky the one-third of the initial settlement offer in the case. My disagreement on the decision revolves around the moral aspect of what happened, rather than just the legality of the