4 ms·
They could have awarded nominal damages, $1 or whatever.
by egdod 7y ago
They could have awarded nominal damages, $1 or whatever.
- dragontamer 7y agoThe litigator asked for $5 Million in nominal damages. If the litigator asked for $1 in nominal damages, maybe the Jury could have considered that as an option. But the litigator played the game this way. EDIT: I'm not a lawyer, but I see why the litigator went with the "go big or go home" strategy, asking for $190 Million in total damages. But the strategy seems to have backfired. EDIT: /s/defense/litigator
- egdod 7y agoThe jury isn’t limited to awards that the parties suggest.
- dragontamer 7y agoOf course not. But the litigator has to plant an agreeable idea into their brain. That's literally the litigator's job, and they clearly failed at it. Its not the jury's job to come up with legal maneuvers. The jury are just normal people, like me or you, who may not know all the ins and outs of the law. The litigator makes a case, the litigator makes the arguments, and finally: the litigator bring up some options for what the jury can do. That's the job of the lawyer in this situation: to bring up the best options for representing your case. The litigator went all in with a $190 Million accusation, ignoring the possibility of smaller fees or awards. Its a bold strategy, but it failed. EDIT: /s/defense/litigator. I got my legal terms mixed up...
- sjy 7y agoThe jury should know all the ins and outs of the law that is relevant to the issue they are deciding. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...