Post by Linddzi L on Jan 2, 2016 16:22:05 GMT -5
Hi Reporters,
I've been proofreading transcripts for many years. I'm finding it SO very difficult to get through PI transcripts when the plaintiff can't understand questions that a fourth grader can answer. What's up with this? Simple questions get a "Rephrase that," or, "I don't understand the question," or, "What do you mean?" or, "Can you break that down?" or, "Can you repeat that?"
I just can't believe people can be so dense that they can't process simple questions about things that they have experienced. I have not lived their experience, yet fully understand every single question the first time I read it. I'm wondering if people with below-average IQs are far more likely to bring a PI case. However, this theory is a bit shaky because occasionally, these plaintiffs have some college, even a four-year degree--and here I am, just flabbergasted that they can't grasp simple questions (and hearing impairment is NEVER established, so we can rule that out).
Also never established is brain injury from the accident that would cause this inability to understand simple questions. Sometimes, the atty must rephrase three times. I've read 'scripts in which the requested break-down of a simple question took an entire page.
I told my brother about this just to get it off my chest. He said plaintiffs do this on purpose (act stupid ) just to annoy the opposing atty. I don't believe this because the plaintiff wants to get out of there as soon as possible and would rather be doing other things. Further, it doesn't come off as a ruse, but as a sincere deficit in intelligence. And besides, of all the ways to annoy the examiner, why would the plaintiff make him/herself appear as dumb as a box of bricks? My brother is a chemist; has no experience in the legal field, so I'm tossing out his theory and asking for YOURS.
Is it that I'm just over-estimating the intelligence of the average person? Am I just a lot smarter than most people or what? This is why I could never be a PI atty: I'd get so infuriated over how stupid these plaintiffs could be, I'd lose my cool in the depo room and shout, "Come ON already, these are questions a fourth grader can answer!"
Whew! Good vent! But seriously...maybe reporters can help me explain this? I find myself cussing at the plaintiff as I read!
I've been proofreading transcripts for many years. I'm finding it SO very difficult to get through PI transcripts when the plaintiff can't understand questions that a fourth grader can answer. What's up with this? Simple questions get a "Rephrase that," or, "I don't understand the question," or, "What do you mean?" or, "Can you break that down?" or, "Can you repeat that?"
I just can't believe people can be so dense that they can't process simple questions about things that they have experienced. I have not lived their experience, yet fully understand every single question the first time I read it. I'm wondering if people with below-average IQs are far more likely to bring a PI case. However, this theory is a bit shaky because occasionally, these plaintiffs have some college, even a four-year degree--and here I am, just flabbergasted that they can't grasp simple questions (and hearing impairment is NEVER established, so we can rule that out).
Also never established is brain injury from the accident that would cause this inability to understand simple questions. Sometimes, the atty must rephrase three times. I've read 'scripts in which the requested break-down of a simple question took an entire page.
I told my brother about this just to get it off my chest. He said plaintiffs do this on purpose (act stupid ) just to annoy the opposing atty. I don't believe this because the plaintiff wants to get out of there as soon as possible and would rather be doing other things. Further, it doesn't come off as a ruse, but as a sincere deficit in intelligence. And besides, of all the ways to annoy the examiner, why would the plaintiff make him/herself appear as dumb as a box of bricks? My brother is a chemist; has no experience in the legal field, so I'm tossing out his theory and asking for YOURS.
Is it that I'm just over-estimating the intelligence of the average person? Am I just a lot smarter than most people or what? This is why I could never be a PI atty: I'd get so infuriated over how stupid these plaintiffs could be, I'd lose my cool in the depo room and shout, "Come ON already, these are questions a fourth grader can answer!"
Whew! Good vent! But seriously...maybe reporters can help me explain this? I find myself cussing at the plaintiff as I read!