€10 million in damages awarded in sleepwalking libel case

ChainWhip

Just breaking on RTE now. Case details here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1117/kinsellad.html

Jury awards €9 million in damages and €1 million in aggravated damages for the way the man was treated in the witness box.

Astounding award, the highest libel award ever granted in the State. Sounds as if the judge couldn't believe his eyes when the jury foreman handed him confirmation of the amount.

drkpower

This is why juries shouldnt necessarily be trusted. A quadraplegic in a personal injuries action cant get more than €450,000; yet, someone with an injury to their reputation gets €10,000,000.

Madness; and it will undoubtedly be appealed to the SC costing another few quid in legal fees.

Fentdog84

Please tell me the state is not liable for that nonsense

Bosco boy

It's just a pity the bill isn't going to one of our many rag papers who defame people daily, might make them raise their standards now from somewhere above rock bottom!

Jev/N

Fentdog84 wrote: »

Please tell me the state is not liable for that nonsense

Might not be intentional but deserves it....:pac:

Holybejaysus

Do juries get to decide what the amount of compensation is? Holy crap. I can't help but think somebody may have been...nobbled.

nuac

Huge award, considering the Plaintiff admitted that he had a habit of sleep walking naked. Might be OK in one's own home, but when staying with others ??

Supreme Court will I hope reduce it.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

This is why juries shouldnt necessarily be trusted. A quadraplegic in a personal injuries action cant get more than €450,000; yet, someone with an injury to their reputation gets €10,000,000.

Madness

Or maybe the real madness is that the quadraplegic only gets €450k, no?

Arguably, 12 random people, honest and true, know the price of a pint better than a judge, learned though he or she may be, sitting alone.

Or, if nothing else, maybe the correct position is somewhere between the two.

johnnyskeleton

Fentdog84 wrote: »

Please tell me the state is not liable for that nonsense

Why would the state be liable in a civil claim? Was the company a semi-state body?

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or, if nothing else, maybe the correct position is somewhere between the two.

Or perhaps the reverse. Except take a zero off the end of each.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Or perhaps the reverse. Except take a zero off the end of each.

The reverse of between the two? What's that?

All this give em nothing talk is all very well, but the reality is that someone wrongs someone else the former is entitled to seek civil redress from the latter. It's not just an Irish Constitutional right, but its also a fairly basic Civil/Human Right.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The reverse of between the two? What's that?.

The reverse:
€10m for the paraplegic
€450K for the libel

and take a zero off each
=
€1m for the paraplegic
€45K for the libel

Tadaaa:D

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All this give em nothing talk is all very well, but the reality is that someone wrongs someone else the former is entitled to seek civil redress from the latter. It's not just an Irish Constitutional right, but its also a fairly basic Civil/Human Right.

Is anyone really saying he deserves nothing? But €10m is excessive. Personally I would favour some kind of reasonable cap on the award of general damages for libel. If there is particularly eggregious behaviour by the other party, 'extra' punitive damages should be payable to some kind of fund for legal aid. In my country of 100 people, that would be the system

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

The reverse:
€10m for the paraplegic
€450K for the libel

and take a zero off each
=
€1m for the paraplegic
€45K for the libel

Tadaaa:D

Is anyone really saying he deserves nothing? But €10m is excessive. Personally I would favour some kind of reasonable cap on the award of general damages for libel. If there is particularly eggregious behaviour by the other party, 'extra' punitive damages should be payable to some kind of fund for legal aid.

That's just your view on two types of case. But other than assigning you to determine the correct award in each case, how do we correctly assess damages?

Like it or not, jurys give more money than you think is appropriate, and judges give less. How do we solve this issue? Neither the judge nor the jury is inherently correct, although the whole point of a jury system is that it prevents complacency among the deciders of fact and arguably a judge provides consistency in decisions that a jury cannot.

So it's all very well to say you agree or disagree with any particular decision, but you can't extrapolate a general rule that juries (or judges for that matter) are inherently not to be trusted.

Your argument is based on what you would do in either situation, but I fail to see how it is a criticsm of the jury system other than that you disagree with it.

For my money, whatever about whether the amount in this case was too much or too little, a jury should theoretically have a better grasp of how much or how little is an appropriate award. If this was a once off aberration then you could chalk it up to a bad draw of jurors. But since jurys seem to almost consistently award higher than judges might in the same situation, it does call into question whether judges are adequately assessing damages in Personal Injuries actions far more than it calls into question the correctness of jurys.

And suggesting that we get rid of jurys because they award too much is a politicial rather than legal argument i.e. it is based on the intended result rather than on the rightness or otherwise of the system.

drkpower wrote: »

In my country of 100 people, that would be the system

I seem to have missed that part of the thread.

drkpower

Juries tend to award much higher damages. It is a natural urge. A juror is likely to have never come across this type of issue before. So the actions of a Defendant who leaves a child in a paraplegic condition, or even the actions of a Defendant in sullying the good name of a sleepwalker, is likely to appear utterly reprehensible and indefensible (assuming liability has been shown). When you have one chance in your life to show your distaste and disapproval of such actions, you are gonna make sure its a big penalty.

But that is not necessarily a good thing. Personally I think general damages 'caps' should be set by the legislature (and periodacally reviewed) and judges should award damages within that framework. Judges are far better trained to assess where someone's injuries comes within that framework.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Juries tend to award much higher damages. It is a natural urge. A juror is likely to have never come across this type of issue before. So the actions of a Defendant who leaves a child in a paraplegic condition, or even the actions of a Defendant in sullying the good name of a sleepwalker, is likely to appear utterly reprehensible and indefensible (assuming liability has been shown). When you have one chance in your life to show your distaste and disapproval of such actions, you are gonna make sure its a big penalty.

And judges become immune to human suffering through experience.

drkpower wrote: »

But that is not necessarily a good thing. Personally I think general damages 'caps' should be set by the legislature (and periodacally reviewed) and judges should award damages within that framework.

Do you not see the scope for abuse in that? Political party gets good write ups in the papers in exchange for defamation award being artificially low etc.

drkpower wrote: »

Judges are far better trained to assess where someone's injuries comes within that framework.

Why? Judges are trained in law, not in assessing the value of things. There is value in experience, but there is also value in fresh eyes. The scope for bias is much lower among jurors than among judges.

drkpower

You could say the same of any decision of the body politic. I dont see why placing a cap on general damages should be any different.

Judges usually have a careerful of experience of valuing general damages within the context of the legal system. Solicitors and barristers do it all the time. Saying they become immmune to human suffering is a little over the top; what they become is dispassionate; and when it comes to valuing damages within a fixed system, a dispasssionate approach is the correct one. Fresh eyes bring their own subjective view of one case, with no experience whatsoever of other similar or dissimilar cases; and that is not a good thing.

miseeire

If ever proof was needed that the ordinary person(gotta be careful)in the street has lost the plot,surely this is it.Is it possible some of the jurors may have thought they were eligible for a share of the payout?I mean,in desperate times,people will believe almost anything.To me,there seems no other reason for such a ridiculous award.

coylemj

I know I didn't hear all the evidence but it seems to me that this guy was asking for trouble when he refused to resign from one of the directors' committees in order to reduce the time he spent working directly with the lady whom he visited three times while in the nip. He could have done so and nobody would have been the wiser, if the company hadn't taken steps to keep him away from that woman she in turn could have taken the company to court.

As he's 67 years old and obviously at the end of his working life, it can hardly be loss of future earnings that the jury was thinking of when they awarded him 10m, all I can think is that the senior counsel for the defendant company must have seriously pissed them off with the cross examination of the plaintiff.

But the plaintiff's SC was right when he said the award was off the Richter Scale, the Supreme Court will slash the amount, that is 100% certain.

MonkieSocks

10 Million :eek:


I wouldn't get out of bed for that :rolleyes:

axer

coylemj wrote: »

I know I didn't hear all the evidence but it seems to me that this guy was asking for trouble when he refused to resign from one of the directors' committees in order to reduce the time he spent working directly with the lady whom he visited three times while in the nip. He could have done so and nobody would have been the wiser, if the company hadn't taken steps to keep him away from that woman she in turn could have taken the company to court.

As he's 67 years old and obviously at the end of his working life, it can hardly be loss of future earnings that the jury was thinking of when they awarded him 10m, all I can think is that the senior counsel for the defendant company must have seriously pissed them off with the cross examination of the plaintiff.

But the plaintiff's SC was right when he said the award was off the Richter Scale, the Supreme Court will slash the amount, that is 100% certain.

What type of stupid company releases such a press release? They deserve to be severly punished just for that stupidity alone.

coylemj

axer wrote: »

What type of stupid company releases such a press release? They deserve to be severly punished just for that stupidity alone.

I never mentioned the press release so I'm mystified as to why you quoted my entire post.

axer

coylemj wrote: »

I never mentioned the press release so I'm mystified as to why you quoted my entire post.

The award had nothing to do with what he did it was about what the company did which deserved severe punishment.

helm09

Can't understand how a man of retirement age got 10m - way over the top.. As already said, people who go to court for serious injuries don't get that amount. Think I read there is going to be an appeal so it will probably be reduced and quite rightly so.. after all, if my boss came to my door 3 times, starkers, I wouldn't want to step foot in his office again, yet alone watch him walk away with 10m..

DMCSCH10

The award, on an intuitive level (to us all, I assume), is so high as to be absurd. I’ve always thought the Supreme Court were wrong to refuse to provide guidelines on the matter, & I’ve always thought the comparison made with the cap in personal injuries actions to be an enduring one.
I’m not sure if I’m alone in this, but I think perhaps one of the biggest problems is the jury itself: not this jury or that jury, but the method we use to select our jurors: the 1976 act is long since passed its sell-by date. We have an unrepresentative jury, predominantly, to tweak Lord Devlin’s phrase, middle-aged, middle-class & middle-minded. Give them such free reign & they’ll go to town. I share in the hope that this will be appealed though I question the will of the ridiculously conservative, status-quo-orientated Supreme Court bench to depart from the dispensation. If they were to go so far as to give juror guidelines on damages, they might as well go the whole hog & cease the abominable practice under which punitive damages are given to the plaintiff (I know there was no award of punitive damages here, but the point remains the same).
The idea that you’re being assessed by a jury of your peers might ring somewhat more sincerely were it not for the fact that it is so unrepresentative of the general populous, so many of whom are excluded as of right, & others excused without any rigorous examination. Why we should be so quick as to place our trust in them, rather than in a judge, whose rationality, if the plethora of cases with such ridiculous awards is anything to go by, would far exceed that of the jurors. People complain a lot about judicial discretion because they’re not elected, but in reality, it’s an exercise in common sense which the jury have so consistently shown themselves to lack. If I was given someone else’s money & someone told me I could give it to a guy whose lost his reputation, I’m gonna be generous.
I don’t think I could favour a cap on damages, & I’m not sure the Strasbourg court would either, but would prefer guidelines to be given: being told a quadriplegic would get a maximum of €X would lend perspective to the exercise alone. The point made by JohnnySkeleton that the debate calls into question the adequacy of judicial awards in personal injuries isn’t so credible as that is a legislative cap, & the function of damages there is compensatory, a goal much more easily reached in personal injuries than in defamation suits. He asserts baldly that judges become immune to suffering through experience. I don’t think this is so, & being acquainted with a couple of them, they don’t lose sight of the importance of what they do to the people involved. What a judge brings is objectivity, a skill which years at the bar should have taught him if he was good enough to get elevated to his present capacity.
A casual thought occurs also: I think perhaps such high awards in the more egregious defamations by some newspapers would perhaps be merited, given that, far from having a chill-effect on free speech, it would instead have an ameliorating effect on the integrity of Irish journalism. Whether this approach would ever be countenanced in the Irish courts, however, is another matter.

coylemj

Two comments on that last post....

1. Font, if you paste text in from an editor, please make sure it doesn't end up in a big typeface.

2. Put blank lines between paragraphs.

It's not a very appealing looking post, I just didn't bother reading it.

FreudianSlippers

There is no way this won't be appealed. Even the Judge basically asked the jury if they were taking the piss. :pac: