Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum  I don't think it would be that hard in civil court. An intentional action with no other reasonable utility other than to cause another a general harm? I don't think I would have any problem inspiring the natural vengeful tendencies of the jury (as evidenced by some of the responses here).
There is no question of identity of the defendant or what the defendant's actions actually were. The only issue real issue would be how much was the little girl worth monetarily.
One piece of advice I got once was to contemplate my actions from the perspective of the jury who would have to hear the case. If you cannot figure out how to explain what you did in a way that makes guilt or responsibility or justification a question, then you are better off just forgetting all about it.
D |
All true, but you need to at least be able to allege all the elements of a facially plausible cause of action, or the judge (or his superior, on appeal) will kick the case before the jury gets to exercise their mindless passions upon the defendant's bank account.
Here, there are only words spoken in the very impersonal, remote context of an online message board. I haven't run down the black letter law on intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it might serve to get this case before the jury. But that's about all I can think of, and the harm isn't the death, it's whatever emotional distress she suffered before she hanged herself.
"Wrongfull death" isn't a general tort unto itself as I recall it: this woman cannot be alleged to have caused the girl's death--the girl's hanging herself was the sole proximate cause of her death. So, the only thing for which the jury can award, no matter how much it might like to award for all sorts of things, is the emotional anguish, caused by the defendant's words, that led to the suicide. If they're stuck with negligent infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff is probably screwed: that harm, translated to money, won't be much after remittur and/or appellate review. If they can get intentional infliction, and get some punitives thrown in, maybe they'll make more.
But again, the end result is that the defendant can only be made to pay for the emotional harm suffered by the girl because of her words, from the time she was harmed until the time she strung herself up. When the jury tries to make the defendant pay for the harm of the death, the judge or an appellate court will compare the massive amount of money awarded with the legal definition of the defendant's liability, and either prune down the award, or throw it out as error ("no reasonable jury could find on these facts that...").
Sometimes, our ability to shaft plaintiffs amazes even me
