Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Accidents happen. That is one of the basic facts of life.

These range from little things like


spilling your milk in the morning, to major incidents like a car crash. For this reason, we all buy
insurance. For this reason, we all pay our premiums, because eventually, we know that there
will be an accident. And, when that happens, we want to be ready, so that compensations can
be made.
An accident is what occurred on September 27th, 2014 A tragic accident, yes, but an
accident nonetheless. The facts of the matter are simple. As per their agreement with the
Natural Habitat Preserve, the Wisawe hunt club was taking part in their semi annual fox hunt.
However, they deliberately rushed into an area justifiably set aside by the preserve for
conservation purpose. While attempting to document the damage cause by this transgression
using a drone, Natural Habitat Preserve employee Stacey Earhart accidentally piloted his drone
too close to hunt leader Steven Yaeger. This spooked the horse, throwing Steven from the
horse. Stacy admitted to negligence, and has apologized for his mistake. Negligence is covered
by insurance.

The natural habitat preserve was a loyal Customer of Lilienthal insurance for decades.
Now, when they submit their first claim, Liliental is turning their back on them, and is refusing to
pay. It turns out that Lilienthal was not on their side. They were not in good hands. Like a bad
neighbor, Liliental was not there.

Members of the jury, I along with my co-councils ____, are here today because of that
accident. We are here today to defend our client, the Natural Habitat Preserve, from Lilienthal
Insurances unfounded accusations. Lilienthal is trying to claim that the preserve violated the
terms of the insurance contract, thereby rendering it void. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof in
this case, and the burden is by a preponderance of the evidence. Put more simply, it means that
the evidence should be weighed on the scales of justice. In order for the plaintiff to win, they
must tip those scales in their favor.
As you will see, this is a burden that they will not be able to meet. As the plaintiff laid out
in their opening, the plaintiff must prove one of two things occurred: One, that Stacy ___, acted
with the intent to scare Steven Yeager, and Two: That the NHP violated the terms of the rider.
The defense will show, through the testimony of three witnesses, that the plaintiff will be unable
to prove any of these three points. This is because 1: Stacy Earhart acted with negligence, not
intent and Two: The drone was under 55 lbs. and THree: no material modifications were present
on the drone the day of the accident.

The defense will first show that Stacy Earhart acted with negligence, not malice. The
defense will prove this through the testimony of our first two witnesses, Stacey Earhart and
Quincy Wright. Quincy Wright, chairperson of hte Board of Directors of the Natural Habitat
Preserve, will illustrate that there was no intent in Stacys previous actions. Based on his
personal interactions with Stacy, he will testify that it is not in Stacys character to intentionally
harm another Additionally, he will testify that Stacy was aware than any antagonization of the
hunt club, regardless of the outcome, would result in Stacy being fired.Stacey has already freely
admitted that he acted with negligence on the day of the accident. However, he will testify that
he never intending anything to happen to steven. He will testify that yes, angry word were
exchanged in the past between him and stacy,but words is where he drew the line, because
words cannot physically injure someone. This will show that Stacys intent was in fact the
opposite of what the plaintiff is alleging.
Next, the defense will show that the weight of the drone did not surpass 55 lbs. Quincy
wright will testify that, even with the added weight from the camera, and the additional parts that
adding the camera required, the weight did not surpass the limit. Stacey will testify...___ Expert
Emory Wagstaff will testify that, based on his extensive knowledge of drones, the evidence
shows the drone was under the weight limit.

Third, the defense will show that no material modifications were present on the day of
the accident. While the defense has attempted to lay out the harmful effects of modifications
such as fins, Stacy will testify that he removed any fnns before launching the drone. Expert
Emort wagstaff will show that, due to the nature of the drone, any small changes are not
material, that they do not affect the airworthiness. These include heavier cameras, or small fins
or whistles.

OR

Third, the defense will show that no material modifications were present on the day of
the accident. First, stacy earhart will testify that he removed modifications on the day of the
accident. Emory wagstaff will explain how, due to the nature of drones, that small changes are
not material, as they do not affect the drones ability to fly.

While you are listening to the presentation of the facts, I ask you to consider three
questions. One: Do you think that Lilienthal Insurance proved Stacey Earhart intended Yeager
to anticipate that a harmful or offensive contact would occur? Two, did liliental insurance prove
that the weight of the drone was over 55 lbs. And three, did lilienthal insurance prove that
modifications were present the day of the accident?