• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should there be a limit in what a jury/court can award someone?

Should there be a limit in what a jury/court can award someone?

  • Total voters
    13
There are limits. If this award came from a jury, a judge would and should set it aside and produce a more reasonable figure. If it came from a judge, then the same thing will happen, but on an appeal. No reasonable court would permit this farce.
 
jamesrage said:
Should there be a limit in what a jury/court can award someone?



St. Louis woman awarded $95 million after former boss allegedly masturbated on her
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous over-the-top award. As I read the story, the store management didn't take responsibility for not acting...using as their defense that they are not responsible for the actions of workers. The American judicial system disagrees with that wholeheartedly. Employees are the agents of their companies and, even if they act outside the scope of their responsibilities, most courts hold management responsible unless a contract disallows such actions.

I'd love to have more details about this. He assaulted her twice in one day? The first time hitting her in the head with his penis??? Hahahaha!!! What a story. I mean, she stuck around so he could assault her again? "Hello????? 911?????" Good grief!!
 
Paschendale said:
There are limits. If this award came from a jury, a judge would and should set it aside and produce a more reasonable figure. If it came from a judge, then the same thing will happen, but on an appeal. No reasonable court would permit this farce.
Click to expand...

I am sure lots of people said the same thing about the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case. Basically a moron knowingly put a cup of hot coffee (.served at optimum temperature If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. ) between her legs and opened it which resulted in her burning the **** out herself. Now a trial judge reduced the award to $640,000 and they later settled settled for a confidential amount.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I am sure lots of people said the same thing about the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case. Basically a moron knowingly put a cup of hot coffee (.served at optimum temperature If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. ) between her legs and opened it which resulted in her burning the **** out herself. Now a trial judge reduced the award to $640,000 and they later settled settled for a confidential amount.
Click to expand...

That was actually after several complaints by numerous people, and MacDonald's being publicly targeted over their coffee being dangerously hot. MD basically shrugged and said they didn't care. Legally, they essentially assumed the risk for their negligent behavior.
 
I do think you should be able to sue for whatever amount but that maybe there should be limits in reguards to what you get if you should win.

I am torn as a little person v/s big biz there is a part of me that says hey get what you can get. There is also a part of me that knows all consumers end up eating the cost of these lawsuits as it results in higher prices.
 
It easy when people see a large award being given out in court to be outraged, but the problem is that the award is being given out by people who actually have all the facts in the case, and those outraged and second guessing always lack all those facts. People are quick to be outraged, and generally about things they are partly or mostly ignorant on.

We have a fairly good legal system. Not perfect, but fairly good. There are checks to prevent unreasonable rewards. Throwing artificial limits on the court cases because ignorant people might be outraged would be just about the worst possible thing we can do.
 
This was border line rape. If the company looked the other way, it should be held responsible. But I've always preferred that the people running the company to be held responsible, or at least who ever made the decision that lead to the negligence/fraud.
 
jamesrage said:
Should there be a limit in what a jury/court can award someone?



St. Louis woman awarded $95 million after former boss allegedly masturbated on her
Click to expand...

Two things...acording the the article...

She told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the award was likely to be capped because of federal law and will be closer to $40 million, plus attorney fees.
Click to expand...


So your question is kind of moot as there apparently already are caps.

Next...

Alford claimed that the store's then-manager, Richard Moore, gave her inappropriate nicknames and touched her inappropriately when she first began working there in 2005. Nearly a year after she was hired, she claimed, he came up to her in the stock room and whacked her on the head with his penis. Then, later that day, he lifted her shirt and masturbated over her as he held her down, she said.
Click to expand...

Sexual harrasement hell..thats assault, kidnapping, and sexual assault. I hope the dude is in prison.
 
I don't think there should be limits. The idea behind punitive damages is that they are punitive. In order for that to be true, then the amounts would need to be quite large in some cases. Even if the cap was set fairly high, say 10 million dollars, that would be a pittance to a billionaire. The equivalent of an average person getting sued for maybe a few hundred dollars.
 
jamesrage said:
Should there be a limit in what a jury/court can award someone?



St. Louis woman awarded $95 million after former boss allegedly masturbated on her
Click to expand...

If there was a cap, it should be based on % of the company's gross sales or gross margins and perhaps a portion of the award goes to a charity. If you cap something too low, a large org can ignore the costs of doing the wrong thing.

Ultimately though, one of the most useful functions of a civil case, is not award for the person who had wrong done to them, but to force a company to change its behavior and be more responsible and its one of the few mechanisms available.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
That was actually after several complaints by numerous people, and MacDonald's being publicly targeted over their coffee being dangerously hot. MD basically shrugged and said they didn't care. Legally, they essentially assumed the risk for their negligent behavior.
Click to expand...

You're right. As you pointed out...McDonald's said that didn't care...and they didn't. Actually, there were over 3000 complaints filed along with over 700 injuries.

McDonald's discovered a way of super-heating coffee grounds which allowing them to reuse coffee grounds several time...thus substantially reducing their costs. Coffee is an extremely profitable item for them.

McDonald's actually weighed out their legal cost over that of the profits made from reusing coffee grounds, and reusing coffee grounds won out.

Since there were no litigations filed that would come close to hurting their pocketbook...people were purposely subjected to being burned by coffee that sometime exceeding 160 degrees.

The lady that originally won a 2 billion dollar award suffered nerve damage around her groin area. That award was later reduced to less than 1/1000th of the original award.

The moral of the story is: Everybody heard about the lady being burned by hot coffee and who received a $2 billion award, but nobody knew the facts that led to that award.
The public doesn't know what goes on behind closed doors. And when those thing are revealed, most often it is the motives for reckless, negligent behaviors that are the object of high fines.

In Texas...thanks to GW Bush, a persons life is worth no more than $250,000 regardless of the circumstance.

Jury by peers in injury cases no longer mean anything. The decisions about life and death costs are now in the hands of legislators who pander to the insurance companies. Who do you think they are protecting? Clue: It's not the citizens.
 
There should be a flat amount paid for pain and suffering in case involving that, and other awards need to be based on earning potential, suits against business for punitive damages should hurt but not so much it puts them out of business unless they are crooks.
 
Councilman said:
There should be a flat amount paid for pain and suffering in case involving that, and other awards need to be based on earning potential, suits against business for punitive damages should hurt but not so much it puts them out of business unless they are crooks.
Click to expand...

In this case it appears Aaron's failed to respond to multiple complaints of harassment by this particular manager

The large settlement is both compensation, and punishment for Aarons lack of action. It serves as a warning to Aarons and to other companies that such inaction towards sexual harassment can and will be costly
 
To allow legislators define award amounts for injuries or wrongful deaths will negate 6th Amendment rights.

When injury or deaths occur due to negligence or possibly malice (knowingly providing services or goods that can be injurious), insurance companies are paid to absorb any potential litigation cost and any liability losses.

Legislators take HUGE CONTRIBUTIONS from insurance companies.

Legislators also have very strong allegiance to other conglomerate special interests that provide services or goods to most citizens directly or indirectly. All of these special interests spend tremendous sums of money to lobby to significantly reduce their accountability and liability.
 
Our court-system is crazy. It's kept insane by the professionals within it, i.e, lawyers and judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom