4 ms·

US$7.75 million in damages for (rereads it) stepping on someones property? That's some next-level douchebaggery right there. It's a shame the lawyers involved

by kjs3 3y ago

US$7.75 million in damages for (rereads it) stepping on someones property? That's some next-level douchebaggery right there. It's a shame the lawyers involved won't get sanctioned for not telling their PoS client "that's not going to go over well"[1]. [1] "Any damages Eshelman would claim for that alleged transgression would be limited to “nominal damages” and not the $7.75 million Eshelman had claimed in lost ranch value, the judge wrote."

giaour 3y ago
> US$7.75 million in damages for (rereads it) stepping on someones property? Not even stepping on private property, just crossing through its airspace.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No, while the airspace and touching a pole allegations were just dismissed, there was also—and still is—a “trespassing by foot elsewhere on the property” allegation that is still live, and it is that allegation to which the comment about “nominal damages” applies. So the original $7.75 million claim wasn’t just for corner crossing.
  - kjs3 3y ago
    Oh, well that makes it way more reasonable. /s :-) I guess I shouldn't be surprised. My wife does some work on the medical side of the Personal Injury industry and there's always some comedy about PI lawyers trying to juice the moral equivalent of a stubbed toe into a 7-figure case.
kens 3y ago
The claim is that allowing corner-crossing would cause the ranch to lose 25% of its value, and the ranch is currently valued at $31.1 million. Details: https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a5197326-df94-53ce-82bd-e640acd1929d.html https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a519... (I'm not justifying this claim, of course, just providing information in case anyone was wondering where the number came from.)
- wkat4242 3y ago
  But if corner crossing is legal that value was never accurate in the first place. It can't be considered 'lost'. This is really some pretty contrived reasoning.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    There's some precedent saying corner crossing is not legal. The owner almost certainly bought the property with that in mind.
    - kjs3 3y ago
      To be less charitable, the owner almost certainly bought the property thinking he could use his billions to bully people into not crossing the corner, allowing him to use not only the property he bought, but also the property that belongs to the people as his personal back yard.

by kjs3 3y ago

giaour 3y ago

> US$7.75 million in damages for (rereads it) stepping on someones property? Not even stepping on private property, just crossing through its airspace.

dragonwriter 3y ago
No, while the airspace and touching a pole allegations were just dismissed, there was also—and still is—a “trespassing by foot elsewhere on the property” allegation that is still live, and it is that allegation to which the comment about “nominal damages” applies. So the original $7.75 million claim wasn’t just for corner crossing.
- kjs3 3y ago
  Oh, well that makes it way more reasonable. /s :-) I guess I shouldn't be surprised. My wife does some work on the medical side of the Personal Injury industry and there's always some comedy about PI lawyers trying to juice the moral equivalent of a stubbed toe into a 7-figure case.

kens 3y ago

The claim is that allowing corner-crossing would cause the ranch to lose 25% of its value, and the ranch is currently valued at $31.1 million. Details: https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a5197326-df94-53ce-82bd-e640acd1929d.html https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a519... (I'm not justifying this claim, of course, just providing information in case anyone was wondering where the number came from.)

wkat4242 3y ago
But if corner crossing is legal that value was never accurate in the first place. It can't be considered 'lost'. This is really some pretty contrived reasoning.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  There's some precedent saying corner crossing is not legal. The owner almost certainly bought the property with that in mind.
  - kjs3 3y ago
    To be less charitable, the owner almost certainly bought the property thinking he could use his billions to bully people into not crossing the corner, allowing him to use not only the property he bought, but also the property that belongs to the people as his personal back yard.