1 Game theory of P brought in all this evidence to make her out shes harmed as

1 game theory of p brought in all this evidence to

This preview shows page 27 - 28 out of 52 pages.

testimony to injuries, law prof testimony, economist testi on lost income, expenses. 1. Game theory of P: brought in all this evidence to make her out shes harmed as much as possible 2. How dmgs calculated? – P told story. D told stoy. Jury came back with amount iii. Economic dmgs: 3.2 M (lost earnings 2m, medical costs 1m)// non eco: P&S 0.8M *** Example : In Polemis lets imagine that we had exactly the same case (bizarre event of a hit on deck causing explosion), imagine now that you had a bystander who was watching all of this who had an extraordinary highly unpredictable respiratory condition such that the slightest contact with any particular matter sent them in to a terrible respiratory seizure D could argue that they kept them away as far as they were legally supposed to question for proximate cause: whether or not the encounter between that person’s body and the particular matter caused by the fire was proximately caused by breach of duty. If so, the unusual reaction is no longer under analysis, it is just something the D will be held responsible for *** Example : if you have a car with a valuable painting in the trunk and the D negligently taps that car and causes an explosion, the D is probably liable for the millions of dollars of the painting “Eggshell Property” (probably analyzed through proximate cause, not an eggshell rule) B. PUNITIVE: after comp dmgs given. “now wat?” a. Mostly for intentional torts – more likely for “business torts” (fraud)- b. For neg: P has to prove carelessness that rise to level of wantonness for PD c. NOTE: meeting maliciousness/wantonness does entitle P to PD . Jury decides to chose whether to award PD d. National By-Products v. Searcy House Moving Co: (Relatively represents law) Truck driver drives tractor into car killing 2 peep. Car hit other D’s property. D and decents of dead got dmgs from truck diver comp . i. Case not about the dmgs amount but whether to give punitive dmgs or not. One P’s that died given more money prob b/c of higher lost income. ii. Holding: Need Requisite Culpable state of mind for P to get PD. Punitive dmgs justified when evidence demonstrate D acted wantonly or with intent in causing injury or w/ such conscious indiff to the consequences that malice can b inferred . Here courts say D didn’t act with intent to cause harm (car cold have been manuf badly) iii. SEBOK Emphasis: thinks case decided wrongly! e. Mathias v. Accor Eco Lodging: (DOESN’T reflect law today): D aware its motel was infested w/ bedbugs, but rented rooms anyways. / Test for WHEN to award puntivie dmgs. So how large should awards be? i. Jury gives $5K for CD, $186K for PD- excessive? Nope ii. Holding: As long as willful and wanton std met juries can award what they want. If “too excessive’ it sends msg to D. (PD should b proportional to wrongfulness to D’s actions) iii. Reasoning: PDs r suppose to allow victims of egregious wrongs to make an ex. Of tortfeasors. Prevents underdetterence b/c the ones being punished often cant b punished any othe way (not criminally) ** EXAM TIP: ALWAYS START WITH WHO THE PARTIES ARE? ** EXAM TIP: ALWAYS START WITH WHO THE PARTIES ARE? Defintion: person liable for others tort b/c of relationship btwn that person and tortfeasor. APPORTIONMENT: VICARIOUS LIAB 27
Image of page 27
Image of page 28

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture