Here is a great example of what I would like to call "symbolic" jury verdicts. I say "symbolic" because they are completely uncollectible and the chief purpose seems to be to generate news coverage and publicity for the plaintiff's attorney. In this Florida case, the trial was essentially undefended by any solvent party. It basically involved standing in front of a jury and telling them about horrible crimes and then asking them how much should be awarded to deter that type of crime. The facts are heinous and there is really no limit or guideline as to how much is appropriate to award. I mean, why not $1Billion or $2Billion? Why not $5Million or $20Million.You see these verdicts against drunk drivers, rapists; and other criminals who rarely show up at trial to defend the case. One of the more infamous verdict of this type is one a Pennsylvania attorney had entered against Iraq, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in the amount of $104 Million. Not surprisingly, neither Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, nor the Taliban appeared to defend the case; and not one dollar has ever been collected from any of them.
In fact this Florida trial was a complete defeat for the actual plaintiff. Here is the pertinent part:
A separate lawsuit filed on Susana’s behalf against the archdiocese was dismissed because it came after the statute of limitations had passed, but Herman is appealing that ruling.You see, the Archdiocese has the money--not the priest. He lost the real case and is hoping to have that judgment reversed on appeal. Although the attorney in a self congratulatory fashion suggests that the symbolic award is helpful:
“It sets a standard,” said attorney Jeff Herman, who represented Andres Susana in the case against the priest, Neil Doherty. “Now we know what a jury thinks about these cases. No. 2, it sends a message that we hope will protect other children.”
In actuality, awards like this set false expectations and create impediments to realistic evaluations of these cases. As terrible as the facts of these cases are, they can be very difficult to win or even move forward against the parties who can actually pay. As disclosed in the article, the statute of limitations is a very formidable barrier to any suit at all. But even assuming that the litigant can get around the statute of limitations, a jury is unlikely to award such extravagant sums. Even angry jurors may not want to award an amount that effectively transfers the wealth of an entire solvent organization to an individual and it's attorney. Furthermore, these cases are often brought in magnet jurisdictions like Miami (Dade County) or Philadelphia where jurors historically do award amounts that are well above the mean of other jurisdictions. After publicizing a $100 Million award for your own personal gratification and ego, how does an attorney then realistically counsel an individual client about the actual worth of his or her case if brought against a solvent party?A verdict against a serial rapist in Miami-Dade County sets no standard for the amount a jury is likely to award against a solvent party in a moderate to conservative jurisdiction. There are many counties in the United States where the record jury verdict ever is less than $1Million.
These "symbolic" verdicts are not uncommon. In many situations, the actual amount recovered is subject to a separate "high-low" agreement; or an agreement to proceed against the carrier only for the amount of the defendant's insurance coverage. In those cases, the plaintiff's attorneys often publicize the higher jury award, without really disclosing that their client's recovered nothing or only a fraction of the actual amount. At least with respect to this Florida article, the body of the story accurately reports that the judgment will never be collected. But realistically, assuming that there are hundreds of victims of sexual abuse in Miami; and this is the "going rate" for an individual case of abuse; it would not take many of these types of verdicts, if collectible, for the entire wealth and assets of the Archdiocese of Miami to be transferred to a few abuse victims and their attorneys. So, if this is the "standard," innocent catholic school teachers, janitors, and social workers--with no involvement at all in the scandal-- will lose their jobs and means of earning a living. This is putting to one side, the opportunity for appellate courts to set aside a verdict that is the product of prejudice and passion or to reduce the punitive damage award it it bears no relation to the compensatory damages or wealth of the defendant.
But most people will not bother to read the whole article so the verdict will have it's desired effect. The media will record the record setting verdict in the headline, and most folks will not read further. The plaintiff's attorney will be invited on talk shows, his web site and promotional materials will list the record setting amount as a "representative award."
I leave it to your own good judgment to decide whether symbolic uncollectible jury awards are a proper use of judicial resources or nothing more than a cheap cruel publicity stunt. There will likely be litigation involving the Jerry Sandusky victims against Penn State, the Second Mile Charity, and other individuals who could have and should have prevented the assaults. Like it or not, there will be a fixed "pie" of money to pay off all these potential victims as defined by the collectible assets of the solvent parties. Sandusky likely holds all of his personal assets in common with his wife, which are largely safe from execution; and he can be expected to file bankruptcy. Joe Paterno and the other individual defendants likely have similar arrangements that effectively protect their assets. Institutions like Penn State and Second Mile may also also have defenses and impediments to collecting large judgments. Neither Centre nor Dauphin County, where cases may be brought against Penn State, bear any relation to Dade County, FL. As a Commonwealth University, cases against Penn State may very well have to brought in Centre County, the location of the university or Dauphin County, a venue designated by statute where cases against the Commonwealth may be brought. It is unlikely that residents of those areas will have any incentive to render awards likely to bankrupt one of the area's principal employers.
As an aside, I have participated in cases where graphic horrific sexual abuse has been admitted and established by the insolvent perpetrator; and the issue has been the responsibility of a solvent institution to protect or guard against such abuse from occurring. In my experience, prospective jurors very quickly separate themselves from the victim, and look for reasons why the victim's misfortune would not occur to them. In other words, as strange and bizarre as it seems for the 200 plus pound assistant coach (Penn State's McQuearey) to walk away from the actual sodomy and rape of a 10 year old; the same thing happens to jurors psychologically in cases that involve suits against persons other than the actual perpetrator; they walk away from the situation psychologically. They look for reasons why the victim is not like them; and that they would have made different choices than the victim so the abuse would have never occurred. They effectively walk away from the horror experienced by the victim; minimize the institutional responsibility of the institution; make the case about the victim's choices to associate with the perpetrator; and shockingly, look for character flaws that suggest that the victim brought it upon him or herself.
Again, I leave it to you to decide whether there is any purpose to these symbolic awards other than attorney advertising and promotion.
No comments:
Post a Comment