|
Quasimodo
|
Feb 23 2014, 11:08 AM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
(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)
|
|
Quasimodo
|
Feb 23 2014, 11:10 AM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
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...
|