[ql06] TORT: Appellate changes to awards
- From: "Ken Campbell" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:26:36 -0500
Yes, this case below is about penises. Sorry about that. Sheldon, hold
the remarks about 3-day erections, please.
The interaction between the superior court and the appellate court is
the main thing I'm highlighting here.
When our section (section 5) had its potluck dinner, Stan Corbett came
later than the rest. There were fewer students there so Nicole
Stephenson and I pretty much monopolized the conversation with him for
45 minutes.
Stan is incredibly intelligent and interesting in conversation. One
thing that came up was about various tort awards in the U.S. -- such as
the McDonalds hot coffee case? I forget the details, but I think some
woman got millions for spilling the coffee on her lap.
Stan immediately noted that that award was knocked way down by the
appellate court. He said almost all of the huge tort awards are severely
trimmed on appeal. But the trimming never gets the headlines and many
people continue on, for the rest of their lives, thinking the original
awards stood.
Since then, I've always been watching for the dynamic.
And I saw this case.
The original award was $3 million -- the appeals court sent it back to
superior court, saying reduce that total. The judge did: BY ONE PENNY.
Heh heh. That's some gutsy judge, a loud and clear: screw you. (No
puns.)
Ken.
--
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of
human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it
is the creed of slaves.
-- William Pitt
Speeches: The India Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$3M Verdict
FREEHOLD, N.J. (AP Friday, Nov. 21, 2003) - A man who had to endure a
three-day erection after penile surgery was awarded $3 million by a jury
two years ago, but an appeals court ordered a Monmouth County judge to
lower the award.
So Superior Court Judge Alexander Lehrer did - by one penny.
Now the appellate panel has taken the case away from Lehrer, and
directed a different judge to further reduce the award to Joseph Tomaino
of Neptune. He sued the Male Sexual Dysfunction Institute in Chicago and
a doctor after he had to undergo surgery to end a three-day erection he
suffered following their treatments in 1992.
The appeals court had ordered Lehrer, who presided over the trial, to
cut the $3 million, saying the size of the award "shocked the court's
conscience" because Tomaino, though unable to perform sexually, could
still work and enjoy sports and social activities.
But Lehrer said he thought Tomaino should have gotten even more than $3
million.
In a decision written this week, the appeals panel reversed the judgment
and sent the case back with orders for another judge to reduce the
award, citing Lehrer's "demonstrated unwillingness to comply with our
instructions."
Dennis Drazin, the lawyer representing Tomaino, said he plans to ask the
state Supreme Court to hear the case.
"You have a young man who is deformed for the rest of his life," he told
The Star-Ledger of Newark. He said Lehrer was in the best position to
evaluate whether the jury award was appropriate, since he saw the
witnesses and heard the evidence.
Joseph Manning, the lawyer currently representing thoracic surgeon
Sheldon Burman and the Male Sexual Dysfunction Institute, declined to
comment on the ruling.
Other related posts:
