Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
An interesting Arizona case; from 2008
Topic Started: Feb 23 2014, 11:08 AM (136 Views)
Quasimodo

(Bear in mind that this cites Arizona law, but . . .)

Quote:
 

Southwest Airlines Co. (“SWA”) appeals the
judgment entered after a jury found SWA liable for
compensatory and punitive damages stemming from its conduct
surrounding the arrest and criminal prosecution of its
passengers, appellees Thomas Hudgins and Leroy Devore.

(snip)

40 Before we can decide whether the conduct
underlying the punitive damages award caused harm to
Plaintiffs, we must identify the SWA conduct that qualified
as aggravated, outrageous, and performed with an “evil
mind.”


A defendant acts with an evil mind if he “should be
consciously aware of the evil of his actions, of the
spitefulness of his motives or that his conduct is so
outrageous, oppressive or intolerable in that it creates a
substantial risk of tremendous harm to others.”


Mere gross negligence
or even reckless disregard of circumstances does not
support an award of punitive damages.

To
determine whether sufficient evidence exists that a
defendant acted with an evil mind, a court examines factors
such as the reprehensibility of the conduct, the severity
of harm that was actually or potentially imposed and the
defendant’s awareness of it, the duration of the
misconduct, and any concealment of the risk of harm.


(snip)

According to
Gillespie, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Hood acknowledged that
Plaintiffs needed SWA’s help to get the criminal cases
dismissed. Regardless, referring to Plaintiffs, Hood said
those “rednecks from Virginia” would not get any of SWA’s
money, and stated that because their convictions would be
SWA’s best defense to any lawsuit, he was willing to let
the prosecutions go forward.


[Could that be a good motive for some other entity which feared being sued, for
backing a prosecution? And for its seeming determination, amounting almost
to desperation, to see the potential plaintiffs convicted on some kind of charges;
or disciplined by a disciplinary board should they fail to be convicted? (MOO)]


43 Based on this evidence, the jury could have
reasonably found that SWA acted outrageously and with an
evil mind by consciously pursuing a course of conduct
designed to threaten Plaintiffs with criminal convictions

in order to secure a release of civil liability for SWA.

Similarly, the jury could have reasonably concluded that
SWA consciously disregarded a substantial risk of emotional
harm
to Plaintiffs stemming from the prospect of a
prolonged criminal prosecution and possible convictions.

[See above about "some other entity". At some point did it become
an overriding concern that there should be convictions of some kind,
to justify conduct and prevent lawsuits?
Could any pressure have been brought to bear on, say, an AG,
to try and get him to find some cause for convictions (such as petty theft)?
Don't know. But if an "entity" had placed all its bets on the "conviction" tile,
it might not want to lose... (entirely MOO,
of course,and for discussion purposes only]


(snip)

50 Punitive damage awards are not intended to
compensate plaintiffs but exist to punish the wrongdoer and
deter future harmful conduct.
Such awards,
however, are not without constitutional restraints.


(snip)

[In the lax suits, how could Duke not have understood the severity
of the penalties the state might impose for their conduct? Or the emotional
distress that this would involve?]


(snip)

52 The degree of reprehensibility of a defendant’s
misconduct is the most important indication of the
reasonableness of the punitive damage awards.


(snip)

¶53 The record before us reveals the existence of two
reprehensibility factors. First, SWA acted in reckless
disregard of Plaintiffs’ health.


Although Plaintiffs had
already suffered emotional distress by being arrested and
jailed for a weekend, their distress continued as long as
the prospect of prison and/or a fine loomed with the
ongoing investigation.


By failing to disclose the results
of its internal investigation to authorities and produce
Williams for an FBI interview, SWA prolonged the
investigation, which in turn prolonged Plaintiffs’
emotional distress.


Second, SWA acted with intentional
malice rather than by accident.


Specifically, in an
attempt to avoid civil liability
for SWA from an
anticipated lawsuit initiated by Plaintiffs, Hood was
willing to allow the criminal cases to proceed
rather than
provide the United States Attorney’s Office with the
results of SWA’s internal investigation.

(“The
reprehensibility factor of harm suffered as ‘the result of
intentional malice, trickery, or deceit’ rather than ‘mere
accident’ may be satisfied when the defendant commits
willful acts in derogation of the plaintiff’s rights.”).


(snip)

59 Plaintiffs argue that a high ratio is justified
because SWA’s misconduct could have resulted in their
criminal convictions. In turn, Plaintiffs could have lost
their freedom, their jobs, and even their lives or physical
well-being if imprisoned.


We disagree. At most, SWA’s
misconduct delayed the dismissal of the federal charges and
did not bear on the legal viability of the criminal
charges. For example, no evidence suggests SWA sought to
fabricate events in order to secure criminal convictions.

[What about a case in which imprisonment could have resulted, and in which
the defendants did fabricate events in order to secure criminal convictions?]


(snip)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo


Of course we know that Judge Beaty found that the plaintiffs didn't suffer enough for
their complaint about emotional distress to be considered.

Being arrested for a crime one didn't commit (and which never happened), being made pariahs
of the international media for a year, being exposed to public opprobrium for the same,

and living with the possibility of a rigged conviction for a year

evidently don't qualify...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply