| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kage
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 3495
Back to top |
|
4ever_bball_fan
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 6125
Location: Houston
Back to top |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/16/07 11:54 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
I'll repeat that I wish she hadn't filed the suit, but I did have a thought on the issue of whether she was harmed.
Some people have pointed out that the RU players ended up looking pretty good when all was said and done in April, and I certainly don't disagree. However, you have to remember that the team and the university spent a lot of time and effort to get to that point. The damage really shouldn't be assessed at the end, but at the point when Imus said what he said.
It's the same principle as getting compensated by the person who hits your car. The courts don't say "your injuries are healed and your car has been repaired, so there aren't any damages." Instead, they look at the situation right after the accident, and compensate you for all of the costs the accident imposed on you at the time.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19763
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 12:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think he did hurt those girls. I really do.
But I don't know how you can put a monetary value of emotional pain. And I don't know if it's a good thing that people try to do so.
It enforces the feeling that money fixes everything.
I wish she wasn't, but then again, if she can gets something from it, probably settle out of court, maybe it's not that bad...
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
bballfan
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 1695
Location: Bremerton, Washington
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 1:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
More on this...
| Quote: |
| Kia Vaughn is now following the example of her fearle$$ leaders. She wants her piece of the pie. She doesn't care that her lawsuit will undermine the credibility of her former teammates and make the Rutgers women look like money-grubbing, attention-starved opportunists. Vaughn watched Womandela cash in with a book deal and new contract, so why shouldn't at least one of the allegedly highly offended players get in on the score? |
http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/7127682?MSNHPHMA
I don't know if this lawsuit was such a good idea. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 1:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
The damage really shouldn't be assessed at the end, but at the point when Imus said what he said.
It's the same principle as getting compensated by the person who hits your car. The courts don't say "your injuries are healed and your car has been repaired, so there aren't any damages." Instead, they look at the situation right after the accident, and compensate you for all of the costs the accident imposed on you at the time. |
Do you have any legal authority from New York to support that claim? Are you sure that's how it works for measuring damages in defamation suits?
The New York jury instructions simply say that the jury should consider "all of the other facts and circumstances surrounding the parties." It doesn't say anything about exactly when damages are measured, or how the jury is supposed to consider the responses of third parties to the defendant's statements.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
Do you have any legal authority from New York to support that claim? Are you sure that's how it works for measuring damages in defamation suits?
The New York jury instructions simply say that the jury should consider "all of the other facts and circumstances surrounding the parties." It doesn't say anything about exactly when damages are measured, or how the jury is supposed to consider the responses of third parties to the defendant's statements. |
I don't have any defamation cases for you, but it's consistent with general tort principles and not inconsistent with the jury instructions you provided. It seems to me that, if nothing else, the analogy to the crash situation would be appealing to a jury. It's worth considering that Vaughn will be able to provide evidence on the specific impact on her from what Imus said, much of which likely will be very emotional. (I know that courts try to limit that sort of thing to avoid prejudicing the jurors, but you can bet that there would be ample opportunity for her friends and relatives to testify to the impact of the incident.)
Anyway, the truth is that I think we're in angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory here, because it's so hard to imagine this not settling. (Heck, it's easier for me to imagine CVS convincing Vaughn to withdraw the suit than to imagine it going to trial.)
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 5:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| I don't have any defamation cases for you, but it's consistent with general tort principles and not inconsistent with the jury instructions you provided. |
Which general tort principles are those? It is not the case that tort damages are simply measured at the very moment of the injury.
For example, sometimes damages can be affected subsequent acts of third parties. A defendant can be responsible if a plaintiff's injuries are aggravated by an intervening cause, including the actions of other people, so long as the intervening cause is foreseeable. The most usual example: negligent medical treatment. See NY-PJI 2.305.
And a defendant isn't liable for additional damages that might have happened. If, through some fortuity or rescuer, a plaintiff is spared further injury despite a defendant's breach of duty, the plaintiff can't recover.
The car analogy seems exactly backward to me. Of course in that case you get damages. Because you've paid medical bills, paid to get your car fixed, lost time at work, suffered physical pain, and so on. (And if your insurance pays for you, then they can recover that portion, but you can't.) You measure damages by seeing what happens after the tortious event -- the measurement is always, necessarily dependent on subsequent results. See NY-PJI 2.300. Even if you wanted to measure damages at the time of the event, how would you?
And in any event, defamation is a little bit different than other torts. The essence of defamation is damage to reputation. The whole notion depends on how other people (listeners or readers) react.
| beknighted wrote: |
| Anyway, the truth is that I think we're in angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory here, because it's so hard to imagine this not settling. |
With that, I agree. Personally, I'd like to see it litigated, because I'd like to see her lose, but it won't happen.
|
|
LTF1
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 8:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Re the public figure business, as a Rutgers' player, has she signed autographs? I suspect she has as LSU players do all the time. It seems to me if people want your autograph, then you are a public figure. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 8:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| LTF1 wrote: |
| It seems to me if people want your autograph, then you are a public figure. |
That's probably the worst legal argument I've heard all day.
|
|
LTF1
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
Location: Louisiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 9:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Me:"It seems to me if people want your autograph, then you are a public figure."
WH:"That's probably the worst legal argument I've heard all day."
LOL! Well, I didn't mean it as a legal argument per se. But it strikes me as common sense. Do people want the autographs of non-public figures? ie people who aren't even a teeny tiny bit famous? Have you been asked lately WH for yours?
I don't care one way or another how this turns out. I don't have a dog in this fight. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/16/07 10:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| LTF1 wrote: |
| But it strikes me as common sense. Do people want the autographs of non-public figures? ie people who aren't even a teeny tiny bit famous? Have you been asked lately WH for yours? |
not lately. I have been asked for approximately 3 autographs in my life. All in 1987 in Brainerd, when I was on Edina's Pee Wee A team that went to the state finals. There were some kids running around getting their programs filled. (We lost, incidentally. To Jefferson. Damn you Nick Checco!)
I dare say that experience didn't make me a public figure.
The Free Speech Clause is, at its core, about political speech. Go read Times v. Sullivan, which is the source of the public figures doctrine we're discussing. It's about the right to criticize "public institutions." It's about the "freedom of expression on public questions." It's about assuring "unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."
In order to protect those values, we say that people have some constitutional protection when they criticize, even defame, certain people -- namely, government officials. The "public figures" doctrine is, at its core, about protecting our right to criticize legislators and judges and governors and presidents.
Over time, courts have (sensibly or not) extended it to cover celebrities and even professional athletes. But that coverage is at the periphery. And also, those types of people are usually only considered "limited public figures," which means something like they are only public figures for the purposes of whatever activity made them famous.
A test focusing on "have you ever been asked for an autograph" makes no sense legally or otherwise. It has no meaningful connection to the First Amendment or the goals that the doctrine is designed to further. It is possibly underinclusive for certain types of people, and it is certainly overinclusive for other types.
Every member of the Edina High School hockey team gets asked for autographs fairly regularly. Why should that fact give me constitutional protection for making defamatory statements about them? That would be retarded.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/07 9:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| . . . I'd like to see her lose. . . |
As a matter of legal principle or for some other reason?
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/07 11:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| As a matter of legal principle or for some other reason? |
the former.
On one hand, I think Imus is a jackass, and if Kia ends up with a few dollars out of his millions, that's fine with me. But as a matter of legal principle, I think this is a crappy, borderline frivolous lawsuit. What he said does not and should not count as legal defamation.
|
|
tennis2
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 2378
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/07 6:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
On slander per se and damages... a lot has been made of the fact that this is slander per se, but that actually doesn't matter much in practice.
The jury proceeds in two steps: first, it decides whether the defendant is guilty; second, it sets a damage amount. In plain slander, the plaintiff has to prove damages in the first step (the 6th element above). In slander per se, she doesn't.
But in the second step, as a practical matter, she still has to prove damages. If she wants to recover some appreciable amount, rather than just a nominal sum, she must give the jury some proof of what her damages were. In other words, while the law presumes damages, it doesn't presume any particular amount.
Here is the jury instruction for damages in slander per se cases in New York:
I am now going to instruct you on the law of damages. The fact that I instruct you on the law of damages must not be taken as an indication that you should decide for the plaintiff. You will decide on the evidence presented and the rules of law that I have given you whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant.
If you decide that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, you will award an amount as, in the exercise of your good judgment and common sense, you decide is fair and just compensation for the injury to plaintiff's reputation and the humiliation and mental anguish in (his, her) public and private life which you decide was caused by defendant's statement. In fixing that amount you should consider the plaintiff's standing in the community, the nature of defendant's statement made about the plaintiff, the extent to which the statement was circulated, the tendency of the statement to injure a person such as the plaintiff, and all of the other facts and circumstances in the case. These damages cannot be proved with mathematical accuracy. Fair compensation may vary, ranging from one dollar, if you decide that there was no injury, to a substantial sum if you decide that the injury was substantial. |
womens hoops.........the information you have posted interestes me........when i posted earlier and even now, i not only did and have not read the entire thread and my posts have been and this one is hastily written as my mother is in the hospital............actually, most of my posts on rebkell are not well-written either because of haste or dementia caused by i don't know what..........anyway, i love to get into legal questions.........look at all the angles, etc.........but then I get frustated because circumstances have prevented me from ever really effectively practising law, though i am licensed..............anyway, thanks for the info and i will add.......
i seem to remember from 1985, my second time in law school (illness made me drop out the first) that there were four categories which effected how the law operated........maybe not in all states and maybe i am remembering wrong but they were:
nonpublic figure plaintiff vs nonpublic figure defendant
nonpublic figure plaintiff vs public figure defendant
public figure plaintiff vs nonpublic figure defendant (seems this plaintiff had the most difficult case)
public figure plaintiff vs public figure defendant
if these catagories are, in fact, still relevant to the law, it would seem to
favor Kia's case........unless she is figured a public figure...........
I would really like to have time to research her particular position to try and determine what might be the outcome regarding her status
I think one thing people may be ignoring is the fact that it was reported that these young women received death threats........seems like some very substantial damage there.........and i would say there is causation and if you have to get into foreseeability of the threats that they were foreseeable in the climate in the u.s. today....... of course, they weren't threats caused by the defamation but by their response, so one tort resulting in another ..........a continuation of the first tort? been awhile for me........the answer might come right to you (even might come to me on a different day  )
well just thoughts off the top of my head..........
|
|
|
|
when she said Imus comments has damaged her reputation. 