[ql06] Re: TORT: Appellate changes to awards
- From: Sheldon Erentzen <sheldon.erentzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:35:26 -0500
Well, you knew I wouldn't be able to resist.
a 3 day hard-on...That's bragging rights. That's lasting power. Set up
shop...invite the women. come one, "come" all. absolute satisfaction
guaranteed. no one leaves--disappointed.
$3 million for a 3 day hard-on. That's a million a day. that's $695 a
minute.
How's the saying go..."If I had a nickel for every time I've...I'd be a
rich man"
:-D
Ken Campbell wrote:
>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:
