But awards are, statistically, quite moderate. Punitive damages are handed out in very few cases. The average award, in those cases, is extremely low. Of the large verdict, they're almost always reduced by the trial court or on appeal.
Actually, the Bush administration has been pushing heavily for a uniform tort reform that basically puts caps on punitive damage amongst other things. As of now, many states have their own limits on punitive damage rewards as there is concern that these payments are running wild. Colorado currently limits punitive damages to the amount of compensatory damages. So if the lawyers are asking for 75K, then the most they could get from punitive rewards is another 75k which requires persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt for the damages.
There is almost no empirical data backing that tort damages are running wild. The entire movement is supported more by fear-mongering than anything else. That's not to say there isn't a problem: there is. But it's nothing compared to what it's made out to be. And it's not increasing at the rate some think. If you have the resources, check out the amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in the big tort reform cases. They're heavy on rhetoric, but look at their sources. They're scanty.
lol, i dont know if youre looking for an arguement or what, but you just conceded that it -is- a problem -- so dont too huffy puffy. the fact that a lady can get paid 2.9 million dollars in damages because her mcdonalds coffee scalded her clearly establishes a problem. whether or not you think the problem is rampant is up to you, im not going to argue with you so calm down encyclopedia brown and save your sources. i dont know if youre trying to campaign against the reform, but understand that the caps on punitive damges is only -one- tract on the tort reform which is designed to make the us judicial system more efficient as a whole.
price check on anal retentive, price check on anal retentive. sorry I could not help myself I could understand if he didnt spell apple, the, or dum wrong but that word. . . . that I cant spell. . . . is a hard word.
Handwriting is on the wall for the criminal trial, I agree. Too bad, too, the justice system failed this victim. So lying is now on the same level as rape? Either way, there's no way we're going to find out the answers now.
But if you lie about rape, that makes you pretty low. There are so many victims that never report rape, then you have people that lie about it.
One reason you don't name the accused victims of sexual assault is that it serves as a major, public disincentive for the millions of people humiliated by sexual assualt to report the crime. Legal or not, already-made-public or not, it's in very poor taste to propogate the name. In the media, online, wherever. I think it shows a tremendous insensitivity to people who have been sexually assualted. Everyone knows this chick's name by now, and she may or may not have been raped. I surely don't know. But now, date-rapers can rejoice in the spread of her name, and her eventual ascension to sainthood in the Church Of Don't Report It.
Lying in general, no. But lying about being raped is probably on par with rape, seeing how you could send someone falsely to prison for 10+ years. I can't say I am surprised that the criminal case will get nowhere. Honestly, in my opinion it is about 50% chance Kobe committed rape, 50% he didn't. Even if I thought is was a 90% chance he did, in good conscious as a jury you would still have to vote for an acquittle. I would need to be 99.9%+ sure her version is correct to convict, this is America.
laws are more like swords than scalpels, so in most instances, publicizing details about a case is not harmful, in some, it is potentially problematic. balanced against this is 1st amendment rights. i know we're not talking about homeland security news, but 1st amendment is the 1st amendment, a sword, not a scalpel. no doubt this case is distasteful. There's no avoiding it, someone did or is doing something terrible here. and that pollutes everyone.
Until a verdict is rendered, we don't know who the "victim" is, kobe or the alleged victim. intentionally falsely accusing someone of rape is every bit as bad as actual rape. What if you get someone falsely convicted? Isn't there every chance that he/she'll get beat up, killed or raped in jail? At a minimum, they get locked up for years for something they never did, their family life is ruined, their careers are forever altered, derailed or destroyed, and oh yes, they are branded a rapist forever. I've never had either happen to me but I'd say that they are both about equally bad. The word Rape just carries additional weight than falsely acusing someone. But they are equally bad. actually, let me check that. Rape can be "heat of the moment stuff". Guy and girl getting it on, girl changes mind, guy gets out of hand. Not justifiable, totally diabolical, but in my hypothetical rape, it is not premeditated (other rapes sure can be). In contrast, if the alleged victim had consensual sex with Kobe, sat around for a few hours, hatched a plan to screw his life and take a few million . . . I'd say that premeditated wrongdoing is worse than a heat of the moment thing. Both actions have potentially devastating impacts on lives. One is premeditated.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high standard, but it does not require 99.9+%. that would be requiring "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
She got that money because that was what McDonald's made on one day's profit off of coffee - and because McDonald's was deliberately heating their coffee to dangerous levels because you could get more coffee cups out of a bag of grounds.
I read something the other day about this. I was on the side of McDonald's when I first heard about this. I mean coffee is hot, who doesn't know that? Of course it's gonna hurt. But then I read this: http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
