How absurd. The plaintiff can’t even prove that Round-Up gave him cancer but a jury of total dummies felt generous, not knowing what the repercussions of these stupid awards are. If you could monetize the impact that these awards have on the jurors themselves, they’d all feel pretty different about their decision making.
Having the uneducated and uninformed make these kinds of decisions is ludicrous.
I am uncertain as to the education and knowledge of the jury but for a judge to let something like this stand really bothers me. Unfortunately we life in an error where bad things do not happen to good people without someone being to blame. That and everyone knows that a large settlement against a corporation is good for the economy, sarcasm intended.
What is actually absurd is that you felt sufficiently moved to respond in that manner to this story. The plaintiff proved enough to a jury to not only come back with a verdict in his favor but also award significant punitive damages. The only total dummy here in that case would be you, showing how uneducated and ill informed you are.
Try to understand the nature of law, justice, civil liability, punitive damages and most significantly how our legal system works to ensure that large corporations dont get away with practices that could harm people like this plaintiff. And you. Perspective much?
How absurd. The plaintiff can’t even prove that Round-Up gave him cancer but a jury of total dummies felt generous, not knowing what the repercussions of these stupid awards are. If you could monetize the impact that these awards have on the jurors themselves, they’d all feel pretty different about their decision making.
Having the uneducated and uninformed make these kinds of decisions is ludicrous.
I am uncertain as to the education and knowledge of the jury but for a judge to let something like this stand really bothers me. Unfortunately we life in an error where bad things do not happen to good people without someone being to blame. That and everyone knows that a large settlement against a corporation is good for the economy, sarcasm intended.
What is actually absurd is that you felt sufficiently moved to respond in that manner to this story. The plaintiff proved enough to a jury to not only come back with a verdict in his favor but also award significant punitive damages. The only total dummy here in that case would be you, showing how uneducated and ill informed you are.
Try to understand the nature of law, justice, civil liability, punitive damages and most significantly how our legal system works to ensure that large corporations dont get away with practices that could harm people like this plaintiff. And you. Perspective much?
C’mon, man, where’s your compassion?
His award was cut down from $289 million. Now he only gets $78 million.
What does proof have to do with lottery winnings anyway?