US: Worst Legal/Jury Judgment Of All Time? Jury Trial in Civil Cases - Ireland

randypriest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8219473.stm


A US jury has ordered tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay $13.8m (£8.4m) to the daughter of a lifelong smoker who died of lung disease. The jury in Los Angeles decided in favour of Jodie Bullock, whose mother Betty died of lung cancer in 2003 aged 64. She had smoked for 47 years.
Philip Morris said she could have given up smoking at any time as the harmful effects of cigarettes were known.
Philip Morris is a part of Virginia-based tobacco-products group Altria.

Betty Bullock had sued Philip Morris in April 2001 on the grounds of fraud and product liability.
In 2002, a jury recommended that Philip Morris should pay $28bn in punitive damages to Mrs Bullock, but a judge later reduced the award to $28m.
In 2008, the US Court of Appeal overturned the jury's decision and sent the case for a new trial, with Philip Morris arguing that the $28m was excessive.

Why even bother with a jury for a civil case? I especially loved the recommedation for $28billion in damages. Typical Americans.

Tom Young

In Ireland, this system was done away the using the Courts of Justice Act 1924, Section 94 to be precise.

Additionally, this section was mentioned and re-stated somewhat in Section 1 of the Courts Act 1988. Subsection 1 deals with this adequately also, Subsections a, b, c summarise matters which "shall not be tried by jury" which includes Personal Injuries matters.

The exceptions here are false imprisonment and trespass to the person under Civil Law.

This matter/question came before Dunne J. in the High Court in July 2009. The case Kerwick v Sunday Newspapers Limited involved a conjoined action: Personal Injuries, Privacy and Defamation. There was an Ex Tempore decision delivered on same and there is a lack of case law in this area in Ireland.

Dunne J. set aside the Notice of Trial, joining all actions into one. In addition I'd remark that if sequential trial or partial trial had been allowed there would have been the possibility of:

1. Actual prejudice;
2. Inflated quantum in relation to damages; and
3. Strong potential for in-trial double jeopardy.

A jury assessing a Defamation claim could not ignore or be directed to logically ignore the locus and material facts in relation to a Personal Injury stemming from a publication or indeed further a breach of privacy.

Further Edit: That is of course based on the fact, not assumption that Privacy and PI cases are to be tried by a judge sitting alone, or in practice parlance, Non-Jury actions.

I am not sure about this, but I believe the case settled.

Think Leech also: Supreme Court appeal on quantum! This is an interesting topic too as the cap on General Damages in PI claims is something which has become a widening area in recent times!

Tom