You should go watch his video — his point is to raise limits and then absolutely enforce those limits to take the guess work out.

Meat is more important than your stupid car.

Honda no netsu o, gokatei ni.

Why is there no comment about "my name not being shirley?"

Circumstantial only speaks to 404a — prior bad acts are still in for showing intent, lack of mistake, plan, etc. You're right that 2006 the federal rules shut out back ending around on that for civil for circumstantial, but again 404b by its nature isn't offering the evidence as circumstantial character evidence.

Again, you're still assuming liability — where is the liability? I do not see it. There's probably a good chance that the trial will be bifurcated (http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/trialcou…) so those costs can just be ignored and then possibly a settlement before a trial on damages should they lose on liability.

I'll give you more in-depth answer later, but quickly - none of that has to do with defense costs, that's all plaintiff costs. Also, just a quick reminder — plaintiff isn't paying her a dime for her time per se, she's on contingency.

heeeyoooo

This won't, or certainly shouldn't, be crafted as RR vs. one biker; you have to see RR actions as a response to the group as a whole. The question then becomes what duty of care does RR owe the group and if so given the circumstances would a reasonable man have acted in the same way.

I'm not entirely sure RR owed the…

I can't even see a picture of Triumph without laughing.

That doesn't mean he's at fault? I still disagree, this case is primed for the insurance company to say let's try it. Without seeing anything but the video and knowing nothing else, they have a pretty good shot at verdict of RR wasn't negligent in the way he acted. I don't see defense costs getting into the 7 seven…

well, WELL played, sir!

you need to read (2) Non-exhaustive list of permitted uses - ". . . absence of mistake, or lack of accident."

that's where it will most likely come in. I know that NY has that in their Evi rules (i've linked you to the federal b/c its just easier)

However there is an exception to (1) which is habitual behavior — I have…

I would be very shocked if they settled — this is a prime case for an insurance company to step in and back up its insured through trial, it's not entirely clear to me that the RR did anything wrong at all.

Thankfully your somewhat irrational sentiments aren't how the law works.

Every single bit of this will be in — most likely under prior bad acts (in conformity with 404(b) http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…) — but it may even come in to prove conformity therewith (habitual behavior is an exception).

should this maybe come with a graphic label or something?

I haven't gone over and read the article they're referencing here, but I would doubt that that cost is just materials and labor. I would imagine a great deal of the cost is still R&D being spread out over such a limited production line.

Even with the addition of veteran actor Don Knotts to the cast, I feel like Three's Company really jumped the shark after the Ropers were spun-off into their own sitcom. The show really peaked during the Suzanne Somers years.

C-O- / B-E-