Economics Professor Awarded $27.5m for Looking Like a Terrorist

leezer3 · 16 Apr 2006 at 22:32

Not sure how many people realise this, but the compensation payouts tend to get massively reduced on appeal- I'd say shes probably going to get a max of $2-3 million out of this in the end- Still a large amount of money but still.
Also as said above, the damages are intended to be punitive, but probably almost as damaging is going to be this dragging through the courts & media attention gained.

-Leezer-

Unconditional · 16 Apr 2006 at 23:41

jamoor said:
well what do you want them to do with the money, there are only 2 parties involved in this case, the woman and the airline, they can't exactly give the money back to the airline now can they?

TBH I'd rather it went to charity.

pegasus1 · 17 Apr 2006 at 01:16

I'd rather be at a court hearing for my actions than at a funeral for my in-action

Minto · 17 Apr 2006 at 01:24

Vertigo1 said:
Surely a more reasonable system would be for the compensatory part to be passed to the victim and the punitive part be given to a charity of their choosing?

i was about to post precisely the same thing, and i've been saying it for years. Solves the ligigation culture (at least partially), penalises the company and benefits a deserving cause, not just someone looking to make a quick buck.

I would be a proponent of this kind of measure being introduced into UK law, however with very strict limits on both the amount and the relative amount in proportion to turnover. I do think even if the USA gave the punative damages to charity they should not be as heavy.

Killerkebab · 17 Apr 2006 at 01:32

Unconditional said:
Well surely if thats the case, then the 27.5 million should have been put to use instead of just giving it to the 'victim.' Maybe give her a much smaller amount of money, and used the rest elsewhere.

The 27.5 million could have been used for something useful instead of just insuring that some woman who had a minor inconvenience doesn't have to worry about money ever again.

Am I the only person here who thought that 27.5 million is what comes OUT of the airlines pockets, but the victim actually gets a lot less than that?

pegasus1 · 17 Apr 2006 at 02:00

Killerkebab said:
Am I the only person here who thought that 27.5 million is what comes OUT of the airlines pockets, but the victim actually gets a lot less than that?

Its a little steep dont you think.

Spud21 · 17 Apr 2006 at 02:31

pegasus1 said:
Its a little steep dont you think.

Not at all, i don't agree that any of the punitive damages should go to the person wronged, but 27.5 million would have been arived at because of the size and turnover of the Airline.

It was deemed by the court that the extra 25 mill or whatever it was would be a sufficient financial punishment to ensure that the airline does not do it again.

The point of Punitive damages is NOTHING to do with weather the claimant deserves it or not, that what the compensation is for, the punitive damages are meerly a punishment to financially harm without doing any real damage to the company that has made a woeful error. It's basically a fine, we fine companys in this country that fail to do their job or do things wrong, this is how they do it in the US.

I don't like the system as some have already stated it breeds a claim culture to the extreme, but thats the way it is.

FeFiDoh · 17 Apr 2006 at 03:01

even 4 the trauma thats way to much, i for one *** forget my worries for a mil yet alone 27.5! Who needs to goto the USA then :rolleyes:

pegasus1 · 17 Apr 2006 at 03:08

This is a tricky one but the money involved doesnt relate directly to the incident.
It does however relate to American sociaty

Spud21 · 17 Apr 2006 at 03:27

R5Rich said:
even 4 the trauma thats way to much, i for one *** forget my worries for a mil yet alone 27.5! Who needs to goto the USA then

Read the thread ffs. The 25 mill is nothing to do with the trauma, it's the punitive damages awarded. WHICH ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH IF THE WOMAN DESERVES IT OR NOT IN RELATION TO WHAT HAPPENED, ITS A METHOD OF PUNISHING THE ARILINE.

It's been explained about 3 zillion times in the thread, she was awarded compensation relative to her ordeal, and then the punitive damages are basically a fine for the airline.

Killerkebab · 17 Apr 2006 at 03:43

Spud21 said:
It's been explained about 3 zillion times in the thread, she was awarded compensation relative to her ordeal, and then the punitive damages are basically a fine for the airline.

We should just let them think she's actually getting the full $27.5m and direct their rage at America.

Arcade Fire · 17 Apr 2006 at 10:23

pegasus1 said:
I'd rather be at a court hearing for my actions than at a funeral for my in-action

Do you think that any action is justified to fight against 'terror', then - even if it ends up punishing innocents? Or do I misunderstand you?

Without knowing the full details of the case it makes it nigh-on impossible to decide whether the compensation was fair or not. To me, the words "false imprisonment and malicious prosecution" imply some kind of torture or sensory deprivation, in which case you'd expect the compensation to be fairly high.

I don't think that it was made clear whether it was the airline guilty of false imprisonment, or whether they were just guilty of exaggerating her actions, which in turn led to her wrongful imprisonment.

Killerkebab said:
We should just let them think she's actually getting the full $27.5m and direct their rage at America.

Only in America :rolleyes:

barnettgs · 17 Apr 2006 at 10:45

How would you spot a 'terrorist' without getting sued?

So-called 'War on terror' in bush's backyard. :rolleyes:

Garp · 17 Apr 2006 at 11:04

Possibly a little excessive payment, but it is just.

What baffles me is why she is still down on Terrorist lists?!

barnettgs said:
How would you spot a 'terrorist' without getting sued?

So-called 'War on terror' in bush's backyard.

You're obviously an expert. How exactly does one spot a terrorist? You know, what with them being normal looking members of society an all?

Maybe you think all the people on the underground in July last year were blind not to spot those terrorists with their bombs?

barnettgs · 17 Apr 2006 at 11:20

Garp said:
How exactly does one spot a terrorist? You know, what with them being normal looking members of society an all?

Maybe you think all the people on the underground in July last year were blind not to spot those terrorists with their bombs?

Not exactly what I mean by spotting but my point is that after this crazy payout, it is not exactly encouraging for reporting anything strange?

Arcade Fire · 17 Apr 2006 at 11:21

Garp said:
You're obviously an expert. How exactly does one spot a terrorist? You know, what with them being normal looking members of society an all?

They all have olive skin, long, unkempt beards, wear turbans and look suspiciously bulky under their traditional Muslim robes. And they say 'dirka dirka' instead of speaking English.

Obviously!

NokkonWud · 17 Apr 2006 at 12:14

Gilly said:
Falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and she remains (incorrectly) on terrorist watchlists.

Out of all the 'OMG LOOK AT HOW MUCH' lawsuits that have gone round, the amount of cash in this one is probably the closest proportionally to events.

I disagree, that woman who got $25m for spilling a McDonalds cup of coffee on herself was much closer.

dirtydog · 17 Apr 2006 at 12:17

Garp said:
What baffles me is why she is still down on Terrorist lists?!

She is of middle eastern appearance of course! You can't be too careful.

Werewolf · 17 Apr 2006 at 12:28

Garp said:
Possibly a little excessive payment, but it is just.

What baffles me is why she is still down on Terrorist lists?!

Presumably the same reason 8 month old babies have been stopped from flying - the people administering the lists and enforcing them don't have much in the way of common sense, and the chances are there isn't a set proceedure to remove names from the list (or the cleared list and no fly list aren't compared).

With regards to the amount of the damages, as people have said it will be punative damages, and as such will likely be closely linked to the companies turnover/profits (probably something like a days turn over).
If memory serves the McDonalds coffee case (which is much more complicated than "stupid lady spills coffee on herself whilst driving and sues), had the punative part of the damages set based on the sales of coffee at McDonalds for a set period (I think it was a day or a week).

Dave M · 17 Apr 2006 at 13:19

Arcade Fire said:
To me, the words "false imprisonment and malicious prosecution" imply some kind of torture or sensory deprivation, in which case you'd expect the compensation to be fairly high.

No they don't imply that.

To bring it into focus, you are out on the town and pull faces at a copper, annoyed by this, he arrests you for drunk and disorderly, throws you in a cell for the night and you get put before the magistrate the next day.

You are innocent of any of the crimes you are accused of and the only reason you were arrested was for the copper to take revenge.

You were falsely imprisoned and prosecuted for the sake of hurting you further (maliciously).