Economics Professor Awarded $27.5m for Looking Like a Terrorist

[xiphrex]

This thread needs some pictures!

 

[Sequoia]

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).

Correct. We all have a basic right to freedom, and depriving someone of that freedom is VERY dangerous territory if you aren't sure of what you're doing, precisely because you can end up getting sued. This is why making a citizens arrest is a dodgy thing to try - get it wrong and it can cost you badly. And this lady was "bundled off" her flight, presumably forcibly, and detained. And, a citizen's arrest is essentially what the airline did.

Also, the description of "malicious" prosecution rather suggests that the prosecution was not done in good faith. That, I rather imagine, had an impact on the amount of the punitive damages. It rather suggests that the court felt the airline was complicit in proceeding with this prosecution despite not believing she was guilty of anything. If so, then punitive damages are designed to punish deep-pocketed corporations for this type of activity, and hitting them in the wallet is a fairly effective way to do this. It not only punishes corporate malfeasance, but sends a very clear message to other corporates of what lies in store if they do similar.

Bear in mind, when a multi-billion dollar company throws the full might of it's legal weight at a private citizen, it is a VERY intimidating experience.

So, if large punitive damages were awarded against Southwest, it was for fairly serious corporate malfeasance. Given that, how do you punish them? A slap of the wrist? A 50p fine?

Southwest is a multi-billion dollar company with a turnover of $7 billion, and annual profits (2005) of some $548 million. A £10,000 fine is simply NOT going to get their attention. That's the whole point of punitive damages - it's punishment. And to be punishment, it has to HURT!

I can understand why people think she doesn't deserve that kind of money for what she went through ... and I agree. But that's not what the $25 million punitive part of the award is about.

As for saying "give it to charity" ... well, fair enough. I rather agree. But the court can only do what the system permits. Maybe the system ought to be or even badly needs to be, changed. But in the meantime, judges and juries haveto work witin the current rules. And they did.

What's the alternative? Give a naughty corporate the financial equivalent of a slapped wrist, or make them wince, even it it means their victim gets a whopping payout?

It may not be ideal, but the whopping payout option is certainly better than the slapped wrist option.

Oh, and bear in mind (as has been said), it'll quite likely get reduced on appeal, and .... unless this lady paid all her own legal fees (which will very likely have been a LOT of money), it's likely her lawyers operated on a contingency basis and she could very well end up losing 30%, 40% or even 50% of the award to them. She could still end up with a large stettlement, but I'd bet it'll be nowhere near $27.5 million by the time the dust settles.

 

[pegasus1]

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?

I'll give a couple of examples.
1 Two blokes walking home from a club hear what sounds like a fight down an alleyway, they rush down to find a bloke giving his 'girlfriend' a good kicking, one of the lads intervens by hitting the attacker, the attacker falls to the floor bangs his head and later dies. The knight in shinning armour spent two years on remand before being cleared completely.
2 Bloke walking along witnesses a suicide, a young lad throws himself off a carpark, the bloke walking past rushes to the body of the young lad and finds him still alive, knowing some basic first aid he keeps this young lad alive until an ambulance arrives, the young lad later dies of his injuries, the passer by is later taken to court by the young lads parents who believe the passer by's actions contributed to their sons death.
I can assure you that both of the above are very true.
How many times do we hear about passers by ignoring an attack or similiar because they dont want to get involved.
Both of the above individuals are glad they got involved even though initially the law was very much not behind them.