Fartman?

Agreed. I think the idea is to get the jury to "anchor" on the initial claim, and come back with "no fucking way we're giving $190m, let's cut that right back to $50m." That's the usual strategy of the opening gambit, but I agree that if I were on the jury it would backfire.

For comparison, in most Oz jurisdictions either party can elect a jury trial (which adds a wildcard element, but excessive awards are overturned on appeal) otherwise it is before a judge. I'd guess this case would earn the plaintiff about $20-40k.

Years ago my father won a defamation case against a media outlet where the only issue was damages. They admitted prior to trial that they published false information without fact checking and got it totally wrong, and had issued a retraction and apology. The defence was that my father was so well respected that nobody (or nobody who matters) could have possibly believed their outrageously defamatory claim.

There seems to have been some of that in Musk's defence. It was a petulant insult, not a statement of fact. The plaintiff has been feted, received an MBE from the queen of England, an award from the king of Thailand. None of that would have happened if Musk's 'accusation' was taken seriously. Still, I think the opportunity to slap Musk will be irresistible.

Despite its misleading name, the Central District is (basically) Southern California except for San Diego and Imperial Counties (which are the appropriately named Southern District). That's relevant because LA juries are notorious for inappropriately large damages awards. Many lawyers twist themselves in knots to get their cases into the Central District or, even better, into state court in downtown LA's Stanley Mosk Superior Court.

That all said, hopefully the federal judge will be better able/willing to control the damages award, unlike his/her Superior Court brethren.

But aren't federal juries allowed to consider the defendant's wealth when awarding punitives? Or is that a procedural law borrowed from California? If so then is there a difference between the two sources of law? I don't know either way, but it seems that they would be able to consider wealth in order to punish.

---

War is god

it seems that they would be able to consider wealth in order to punish. //

I always thought this was the case, especially in big corporate cases. Even if it seems like an award should be like $100k, that amount might be cigar money for a day with some people, or companies, so not really a punishment or something that would change bad behavior. So if punishment or behavior changes are the goal of punitive awards, then it would seem necessary to know the size of the bankroll you are dealing with, no??


So in Elon's case, making it anything less than a million would be like 5 bucks to you and I. Hundreds of millions, now that is going to hurt..Not saying it is right or wrong, just seems like that is how it used to be..

absolutely right on the "anchoring" however for it to work properly your "anchor" is your actual damages- in a wreck injury case it's the amount of medical bills, lost wages, etc. If the anchor is high enough then when you add mental anguish, P&S to it, it makes ok. EX, I'm asking for $13,000,000 bc not only were the medical bills nearly $1,000,000 but a 60ish father/husband/grandpa died a terrible death, etc. The anchor has to be a place the jury can put a pin in and count from there, in my example, the $1M. Here, unless they did some kind of calculation about the toll this took on "pedo guy" or the counseling sought and how his life fell apart, I think the jury shuts them down. BUT I didn't hear any evidence so what do I know.

And my faith in humanity is restored- defense verdict (it is very very rare that I applaud a defense verdict). Apparently $190M was not a reasonable request. clowns.

Actually, the real power of the psychology of anchoring is that, particularly when people have little/no real idea, they will place disproportionate value on the first piece of information they receive, even if it can be shown that it is wholly irrelevant information. They will still compare later evidence to the first, to which they are "anchored".

Take a random, obscure fact. Say, "how many times in the USA has a jury awarded more than $100m in damages?"

That's verifiable fact, but most people would have no clue. (I have no clue). If polled, say for the sake of argument they would on average estimate 50 times.

Now, provide an anchor (but no actual information).

Re-frame the question in 2 parts;
"Would you estimate it to be more or less than 1500 times? What number would you estimate?"
People will mostly say less, and will "estimate" (guess) on average (say) about 1200 times.

Try with a different group:
"Would you estimate it to be more or less than 6 times? What number would you estimate?"
People will mostly say more, and will "estimate" (guess) on average (say) about 12 times.

The anchor provides no data whatsoever, but the way our brains work we can't help being significantly influenced by it anyway. It's one of the best recognised examples of cognitive bias.

FWIW Pedo guy's actual damages are claimed at $5m (a bit of a stretch for someone earning 25kGBP) with $35m in assumed damages, and a humble suggestion $150m in punitive damages. Its all about the punishment.

I was always wandering about these kind of people who sue somebody for such an exorbitant amount of money. This is just pure greed and money grab. He must have been delusional to think that Musk will just like that pay it out. Even if the guy would have won, Musk would have appealed and it would go on and on for years. I don't like what Musk said but I like that greedy guy even less.
Why couldn't he ask for some much lower amount that would make him look not greedy and like he is actually in it for some kind of justice rather that greed and get rich quickly?

He should have asked for 50K and then a tweeted apology once a week for a year.

Probably would have had better chances to get this :-)

Punitive damages are supposed to punish the wrongdoer and dissuade similar behavior in the future, what do you consider an adequate number to punish and dissuade someone with ?Musk’s financial means? Think 50k would do it!? 5 million. He’d probably just go on with Joe Rogan and use it that light a blunt.

Well, 190M turned out to be a bit too much. How much is an insult worth? No idea. Lawyers could chime in on that. Obviously, going for huge money/get rich quickly didn't work this time. Maybe he would have had better luck asking for a public apology? Maybe he would have been seen by the jury not as a money grabber but as a human with hurt feelings? I don't know. I guess he didn't care about apology, he just wanted money and seen this as a great opportunity. Why do people immediately demand huge money for an insult? Why not demand an apology and maybe require Musk to write why it was wrong to say what he said.

Why not demand an apology and maybe require Musk to write why it was wrong to say what he said. //

Uhh, maybe because he knows, as well as all of us, that any apology Musk would give, would not be sincere. He certainly would be sorry if it had cost him tens of millions of dollars though, so there is that..I agree though about the overreach, there might have been a number that would have made a guilty verdict much more palatable for the jury(or judge)..

Juries don’t award apology letters. That’s not a thing. And once again, punitive damages are not about getting rich quick. They are supposed to punish the defendant and act as a deterrent for future behavior. The plaintiff is the financial beneficiary of that punishment and deterrence, but they are not intended to compensate for the damages. That is done via a different form of damages called, unsurprisingly enough, compensatory damages.

Settlements can have them

Musk prevailed: https://www.nytimes.com/...amation-verdict.html

    An article I read made it sound like the diver made rude remarks about Musk's offer to help using new tech before Musk said anything stupid. If that was the timeline, it looks like they were both dickheads, and maybe the jury saw that.

ps not sure...dick-heads...dick heads, probably need to find out for sure before embarking on my stint as a serious writer.

I was thinking it was one word?

Like meatloaf.

or pedoguy. in our modern dystopic pseudoreality it deserves to be in the lexicon.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Situational dependent. My neighbor varies how he writes "ass hole" on in what sense he is utilizing it. "Ass hole" if he is describing a person, "asshole" if he is describing the body part. Or vice versa, I'm not certain. I just know he uses the phrase too often.