One more thing I just thought of after reading a few other articles about the case at hand. Apparently, the RIAA didn't even name any actual damages, only the punitive damages. However, the money from the punitive damages apparently goes to the RIAA. If the purpose of punitive damages is to discourage similar behavior in the future, and not to make up for actual harm done, that money should go to the state, not the record company. If that were the case, I think we'd be living in a much less litigious society.
If the purpose of punitive damages is to discourage similar behavior in the future, and not to make up for actual harm done, that money should go to the state, not the record company. If that were the case, I think we'd be living in a much less litigious society.
When I was in law school, I had a much harder time with Liquidated Damages than Punitive Damages. I'll bet you won't since Liquidated Damages are agreed to in a contract and you probably think that a person should be held to whatever crazy terms are in a contract they sign, but there are such things as unequal bargaining positions. I'm a lot more sympathetic to someone who felt that they had to sign a take-it-or-leave-it contract and then were stuck with Liquidated Damages upon breach than some bad actor who got stuck with a Punitve Damages award.
When I was in law school, I had a much harder time withLiquidated Damagesthan Punitive Damages. I'll bet you won't since Liquidated Damages are agreed to in a contract and you probably think that a person should be held to whatever crazy terms are in a contract they sign, but there are such things as unequal bargaining positions. I'm a lot more sympathetic to someone who felt that they had to sign a take-it-or-leave-it contract and then were stuck with Liquidated Damages upon breach than some bad actor who got stuck with a Punitve Damages award.
Yes, you are right. I do think someone should be held to whatever crazy terms are in a contract they sign. However, if they sign under duress or other unfair conditions, that doesn't count. It the same way a confession doesn't count when you are being tortured.
If you can't calculate how much damage they did, then how do you even know they did damage at all? If you are unable to prove they actually did some damage, they might have in fact done $0 of damage. That's a reasonable doubt to me. Innocent until proven guilty. No penalty. The RIAA has to pay her legal fees. Case closed in my not-a-laywer point of view.
As a small point, there is no "reasonable doubt" in civil cases. The plaintiff needs a "preponderance of the evidence", which is much easier to prove.
When I was in law school, I had a much harder time withLiquidated Damagesthan Punitive Damages. I'll bet you won't since Liquidated Damages are agreed to in a contract and you probably think that a person should be held to whatever crazy terms are in a contract they sign, but there are such things as unequal bargaining positions. I'm a lot more sympathetic to someone who felt that they had to sign a take-it-or-leave-it contract and then were stuck with Liquidated Damages upon breach than some bad actor who got stuck with a Punitve Damages award.
Yes, you are right. I do think someone should be held to whatever crazy terms are in a contract they sign. However, if they sign under duress or other unfair conditions, that doesn't count. It the same way a confession doesn't count when you are being tortured.
You can always claim there is no "meeting of the minds" if one party is too stupid to understand the contract they are signing. This happens sometimes with credit card and cell phone contracts, when the end user claims that the language was predatory. As I understand.
From watching Boston Legal. Watch Boston Legal, ABC, Tuesdays at 10 p.m.
If you don't, you'll die a horrible, tribble-related death.
You can always claim there is no "meeting of the minds" if one party is too stupid to understand the contract they are signing. This happens sometimes with credit card and cell phone contracts, when the end user claims that the language was predatory. As I understand.
The language may be predatory, but the real problem is that there's nowher else to go if you're a private individual and you want a credit card. Do you think you actually bargain with a credit card company? Or an insurance company? Such contracts are called Adhesion Contracts.
As a small point, there is no "reasonable doubt" in civil cases. The plaintiff needs a "preponderance of the evidence", which is much easier to prove.
Yeah, that shouldn't be. As far as I'm concerned, if there is reasonable doubt, then preponderance of evidence isn't preponderous enough.
Then say goodbye to plaintiff's verdicts. Preponderance is a pretty high bar if you don't have the power of the state on your side.
Then say goodbye to plaintiff's verdicts. Preponderance is a pretty high bar if you don't have the power of the state on your side.
Better ten guilty go free than one innocent and all that.
I'd like to see you say that if you try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other driver's actions were the proximate cause of your whiplash injuries. Negligent conduct would be very, very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, no one's going to be looking at the difference between going to jail and going free. Someone's just gonna have to give up some money. Is giving up money tantamount to losing your liberty?
The burden of proof is so high in criminal cases because the defendant is being prosecuted by the awesome power of the state, and the defendant is in jeopardy of losing his liberty. Those interests just aren't present in a civil case on the defendant's side. On the plaintiff's side, you'd have that awesome power of the state in a criminal case. In a civil case, you'd normally just have an individual or maybe a class of individuals. They just wouldn't have the same power to investigate and prosecute a case. The preponderance standard is plenty high for a plaintiff in a civil case.
Also, many states these days use Comparative Negligence. That might ameliorate your pro-defendant views a bit.
For example, plaintiff (P) and defendant (D) are driving in separate cars on a street. P is going five miles per hour over the speed limit and attempts to overtake D. D suddenly swerves into P's lane without checking to ensure the lane is clear. D hits P's car and causes $1,000 in damage. P sues D for the damage to his car.
At the conclusion of the trial, a jury finds that P is 40% responsible for the accident due to his speeding, and D is 60% responsible for the accident due to his failure to check traffic before changing lanes. Thus, P is awarded 60% of the damages he sustained, or $600. The other $400 in repairs P must pay on his own due to his actions.
Many, many personal injury trials end up apportioned that way. I did a personal injury trial once from the defense side that ended up as a goose egg for the plaintiff.
It was a car crash. The plaintiff said that my guy turned left across the plaintiff's lane of traffic before the plaintiff smacked into him. I had an accident reconstruction expert testify at trial that the plaintiff was traveling so fast that there was no way that my guy could have seen him even if he was using the appropriate standard of care.
Everyone thought going in that the best I could do was to get a 50/50 apportionment since the presumption of negligence in turning across a traffic lane is so strong. Instead, the jury came back and said that my guy was not negligent at all. The plaintiff got $0.00. HA.
Again, though, it seems like the plaintiff was at 100% fault beyond a reasonable doubt. A testimony of an accident reconstruction expert is pretty much rock solid if he checked his math twice. That is pretty much a solved science. Get two experts to agree, and there's no doubt left at all. let alone a reasonable one.
I have had many cases of that while driving near construction zones. People love to cross the single white line to "beat the rush" when the line becomes dotted (legal to enter lane).
Meanwhile the driver who is just entering the dotted line area moves to go into the left lane and some asshole (who should not legaly be in that lane) is honking his horn!
Tell me Joe, would such an accident case likely turn out the same as you had happen? Is the "that guy could not legaly be in that lane" defense a viable defense?
Comments
Regardless, the money should go to the state, if taken at all.
What if the money was simply burned in front of the defendant instead? Then no one gets the money.
From watching Boston Legal. Watch Boston Legal, ABC, Tuesdays at 10 p.m.
If you don't, you'll die a horrible, tribble-related death.
Further, no one's going to be looking at the difference between going to jail and going free. Someone's just gonna have to give up some money. Is giving up money tantamount to losing your liberty?
The burden of proof is so high in criminal cases because the defendant is being prosecuted by the awesome power of the state, and the defendant is in jeopardy of losing his liberty. Those interests just aren't present in a civil case on the defendant's side. On the plaintiff's side, you'd have that awesome power of the state in a criminal case. In a civil case, you'd normally just have an individual or maybe a class of individuals. They just wouldn't have the same power to investigate and prosecute a case. The preponderance standard is plenty high for a plaintiff in a civil case.
Also, many states these days use Comparative Negligence. That might ameliorate your pro-defendant views a bit. Source.
It was a car crash. The plaintiff said that my guy turned left across the plaintiff's lane of traffic before the plaintiff smacked into him. I had an accident reconstruction expert testify at trial that the plaintiff was traveling so fast that there was no way that my guy could have seen him even if he was using the appropriate standard of care.
Everyone thought going in that the best I could do was to get a 50/50 apportionment since the presumption of negligence in turning across a traffic lane is so strong. Instead, the jury came back and said that my guy was not negligent at all. The plaintiff got $0.00. HA.
Meanwhile the driver who is just entering the dotted line area moves to go into the left lane and some asshole (who should not legaly be in that lane) is honking his horn!
Tell me Joe, would such an accident case likely turn out the same as you had happen? Is the "that guy could not legaly be in that lane" defense a viable defense?