THERE ARE GOOD REASONS NOT TO CALL AN OPPONENT’S ‘RIDICULOUS’ : PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE, IN FACT, CORRECT

September 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Members Content, Written advocacy

This blog has looked at issues relating to written submissions many times. Included in this has been the need to avoid hyperbole, which often backfires. A good example, borrowed from the United States, is the judgment in Bennett -v- Start Farm Mutual Insurance Company (United States Courts of Appe...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Conduct, submissions

2 Responses

Michael Loveridge · September 14, 2018 at 14:29:06 · →

Having read the linked report State Farm were quite right. To describe someone who’s hit by a car and ends up on its `hood’ (bonnet for UK readers!) as an `occupant’ of the car IS ridiculous.

To `occupy’ a car implies some consciousness of doing so on the part of the `occupant’. Why should someone who fortuitously lands on the bonnet be treated any differently from someone who is merely knocked into the road or a neighbouring wall, or under the wheels of a car travelling in the opposite direction?

I suspect the judge decided she wanted to find for the plaintiff and interpreted the law to achieve that end.
gexall · September 14, 2018 at 15:43:23 · →

In some way this response emphasises the point being made. If the Defendant had gone through the case law, and principles, clearly and carefully rather than simply stating that something was “ridiculous” they may have got a different verdict. To start with a pejorative phrase often leads to a “rebound effect”.