Quote:
Originally Posted by Ak Mike
With respect, I disagree that the question is whether a judge or a jury sets damages. I've been in numerous situations where the jury was more tight-fisted than a judge would have been. I think the real issue is the legal standard for awarding damages.
To some extent it's a cultural thing. The U.S. has a strong free speech tradition, so it is hard to sue someone here for libel. You would much rather bring a libel lawsuit in the U.K. On the other hand, our individualist traditions lead us to favor in many cases individuals over corporations, so if you are injured by a product you would rather bring your lawsuit in the United States.
|
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding your argument.
First, how do you know (for a fact) what a judge would have awarded, as opposed to what a jury did award??
Second, what "legal standard" are you talking about?
Third, you do realize it's not a matter of where someone would "rather" bring a libel or products liability suit. It depends on where the injury occurred.
Fourth, it is not "hard" to sue someone for libel in the United States. Libel and slander are not simply excused by First Amendment rights. There may be proof problems that make it difficult to prevail, but there is nothing difficult about bringing suit.
Fifth, whether or not someone prevails in a products liability case has very little to do with an individualist culture. In fact, the idea that people should be able to be responsible for themselves can often weigh against prevailing in a products liability case. As much as a jury might to a man be less than fond of corporations, there is always that thought that ... "how stupid does someone have to be to get a nerf ball stuck that far up their nose??? And, why exactly should we hold the corporation responsible because the plaintiff was/is a complete moron??"