Sigh...where to start? ...

Tom wrote "No, it will most emphatically NOT be tax free."

First, you'll notice that I said "Most or all" will be tax free. Some
definitely will be, perhaps not all, but perhaps all will be. Without
knowing the elements of damages awarded, the taxable/tax free portion
can't be determined by us.
Secondly, before you get into a debate on this point I suggest you
come armed with some knowledge. Take a look at U.S. Tax Code sec
104(a)(2).

Tom's second response was just a series of "HAHAHA..." Neither
intelligible, nor intelligent. No further comment needed.

His third comment, "You better laugh...at yourself", was similarly
well reasoned.

Bill Denton commented that the lawyers may have just fronted the
expenses, and that it is charged back to the client at the end. I
agree that the expenses are usually just fronted, but not always,
especially if the fee is sufficiently large, as it probably is here.
Even so, if $30,000 of expenses were "charged back" (i.e., repaid),
the net recovery to the Carnahan family would still be $2,470,000
(instead of $2,500,000). Remeber-my original post was in response to
the comment by Judah that "The only ones who make any money in these
stupid lawsuits is the lawyers." I'd say that $2,500,000 (or
$2,470,000, or even $2,000,000) to the Carnahans pretty well disproves
that.

Tom again hit us with a brilliant observation (I wonder what degree of
experience or qualification he has to make this statement)..."And
there is no incentive for a lawyer to minimize expenses." Take it
from someone who does know, having been a practicing attorney for over
28 years, those expenses are almost always "eaten" by the lawyer if he
loses. So, there most definitely is an incentive to be efficient.
While you might find an anecdotal story of an attorney filing suit
against a client for unreimbursed expenses, I can tell you that I have
never heard of it. Besides, if the attorny sued the client for th
expenses of a lost case, this is the very best way to invite a
malpractice cases as a counterclaim gainst the lawyer!

Judah then wrote: The lawsuit was stupid because there was "clear and
objective evidence that the defendants equipment was IN NO WAY
responsible... ." (Emphasis added) Well, apparantly not so!! If that
were the case, the suit would have been thrown out on summary
judgement, a common occurance with nonmeritorious lawsuits. Also, a
jury had to be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence (unanimous
verdict required in most civil suits in Federal Court; typically
two-thirds or three-fourths of the jury in state courts) that the PH
product was a, or the, contributing cause of the crash. Ergo... it
couldnt have been stupid, unless two thirds or more of the jury were
stupid (and judging from the degree of intelligence some posters
exhibit, there is apparantly no shortage of those.)

Judah, I dont know the case you refer to regarding the winner owing
money after taxes. However you should know that some recoveries are
taxable, e.g., some discrimination and other types of cases. Of
course, this was not such a case.

Also, I seriously doubt that the defense lawyers were paid seven
figure fees. Granted, I don't know (of course, I venture that you
don't either) but, again based on experience, the defense fees and
expenses may well have have not even reached six figures and if so,
probably low six figures. They are paid on an houly basis and get
paid, win or lose; the plaintiff lawyers get paid, typically although
not always, on a contingency fee. If they lose, they get zip. BTW,
the prevailing contingency fee is one-third, although some go to 0% or
even 50% (vary rare). On the other hand, some are lower than
one-third.