DID THIS JURY GET IT RIGHT? - Page 3

Dash · ‎04-24-2015

@Marp wrote:
@Dash wrote:
Yes, I love dogs, but that's not the,point. $1 million is an outrageous verdict. Rarely are such sizable verdicts awarded for the death of humans, unless the human is, supporting a family, the breadwinner. It's sad that a dog died, but a dog is personal property, same as your tv or car, nothing more, as a matter of law.
I'm happy that you love dogs but please love them from a distance.

Awards such as this are meant to send a message that a particular behavior is not acceptable and hopefully will prevent another incident such as this.

The purpose of a jury award is to compensate for a legally compensable injury. The purpose is NOT to send a message. It seems the jury was angry nd that is why I think the verdict is vulnerable on appeal.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Dash wrote:
@Marp wrote:
@Dash wrote:
Yes, I love dogs, but that's not the,point. $1 million is an outrageous verdict. Rarely are such sizable verdicts awarded for the death of humans, unless the human is, supporting a family, the breadwinner. It's sad that a dog died, but a dog is personal property, same as your tv or car, nothing more, as a matter of law.
I'm happy that you love dogs but please love them from a distance.

Awards such as this are meant to send a message that a particular behavior is not acceptable and hopefully will prevent another incident such as this.

The purpose of a jury award is to compensate for a legally compensable injury. The purpose is NOT to send a message. It seems the jury was angry nd that is why I think the verdict is vulnerable on appeal.

It's done all the time, nothing new.

itiswhatitis · ‎05-27-2016

@Dash wrote:
@Marp wrote:
@Dash wrote:
Yes, I love dogs, but that's not the,point. $1 million is an outrageous verdict. Rarely are such sizable verdicts awarded for the death of humans, unless the human is, supporting a family, the breadwinner. It's sad that a dog died, but a dog is personal property, same as your tv or car, nothing more, as a matter of law.
I'm happy that you love dogs but please love them from a distance.

Awards such as this are meant to send a message that a particular behavior is not acceptable and hopefully will prevent another incident such as this.

The purpose of a jury award is to compensate for a legally compensable injury. The purpose is NOT to send a message. It seems the jury was angry nd that is why I think the verdict is vulnerable on appeal.

@Dash You are under the assumption that there will be an appeal? Why?

*Call Tyrone*

Marp · ‎03-09-2010

@Dash wrote:
It's unfortunate you can't discuss a legal issue without getting overly emotional and personally hateful.

Since I was the one that responded to your post it appears your "personally hateful" comment is assigned to me.

Believe me when I tell you that if I were to tell you what I think about anyone that can think of a beloved pet as a piece of personal property, irrespective of what the law states, you would know what hateful really is. However, since I enjoy posting here I will sit on my fingers and keep my thoughts on that subject to myself.

The eyes through which you see others may be the same as how they see you.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

In San Jose CA, a man who killed 20 cats before he was caught was just sentenced to 16 years in jail.

When sentenced, the judge read aloud all names of the beloved pets.

Times are changing, the law no longer routinely sees pets on the same level as a television set.

* Numbers corrected.

Ms tyrion2 · ‎05-08-2017

@Dash wrote:
@Marp wrote:
@Dash wrote:
Yes, I love dogs, but that's not the,point. $1 million is an outrageous verdict. Rarely are such sizable verdicts awarded for the death of humans, unless the human is, supporting a family, the breadwinner. It's sad that a dog died, but a dog is personal property, same as your tv or car, nothing more, as a matter of law.
I'm happy that you love dogs but please love them from a distance.

Awards such as this are meant to send a message that a particular behavior is not acceptable and hopefully will prevent another incident such as this.

The purpose of a jury award is to compensate for a legally compensable injury. The purpose is NOT to send a message. It seems the jury was angry nd that is why I think the verdict is vulnerable on appeal.

I'm not sure what the appealable issue would be for a jury verdict. Verdicts do indeed exceed compensatory damages. Juries are free to assess whatever amount they choose for general damages and punitive damages.

A judge can reduce an award by remittitur if the award is more than what the plaintiff asked for.