Posted on 08/22/2008 5:58:22 PM PDT by Kaslin
Tort Reform: A man who blamed his compulsive gambling and the losses he incurred on a prescription drug was awarded nearly $8.2 million by a jury. It's a good bet that his jackpot comes at the expense of others.
Yet a Minnesota jury generously awarded him $204,000 on July 30 to cover his gambling losses, $175,000 for his pain and suffering — and $7.8 million in punitive damages.
Charbonneau's case is one of hundreds of lawsuits that have landed in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum claiming that Mirapex, a popular drug that treats Parkinson's disease, causes compulsive and aggressive behavior. Given the enormous volume of complaints, we have to wonder if Mirapex will still be on he shelves by the time Rosenbaum clears his docket of all the cases, which have been consolidated to be heard in two trials.
If Mirapex makers Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer pull the medication from the shelves, concluding that the prospect of further losses in court would be too costly, that would be a rational decision. The same can't be said for the jury.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
We can only imagine what it is he's done about the underlying disease, but Fur Shur he's going to have difficulty "enjoying" his victory.
As the article stated:
“Yes, those injured by no fault of their own deserve to be made whole. That doesn’t mean they should become millionaires overnight.”
The punitive damage award is absurd, imho.
I think that FDA approval should be insulation against all punitive damage claims, unless someone can show actual malicious falsification of data or something like that. This is getting ridiculous— actually, the antics of the trial bar have been ridiculous and destructive for a very long time. I hate the scum.
No fault of his own? Did someone tape this guy’s hand to the slot machine’s arm?
“Yes, those injured by no fault of their own deserve to be made whole. “
That is the new legal standard the litigation revolution made. It did not use to be that way. It was required that the plaintiff show that the person they litigated against had knowingly violated their rights. Otherwise, it was an “act of god”.
The socialist/activist lawyers worked very hard to change the standard of law in the 60’s and 70’s to a redistributionist model. If you could show that you were harmed through “no fault of your own” (the definition includes virtually all of mankind) then someone had to pay, and it would be anyone who had deep pockets, no matter how slightly they were involved.
It is a stupid policy, but it played well into the hands of the nanny state and an increasingly feminized America that is higher on emotion than on rationality.
I was more appalled at the punitive damages award. I dont agree with the “not his fault” part either. I am ASSUMING the case at least had enough merit legally for the judge to allow the case to go to the jury (didnt toss it on a directed verdict or summary judgment prior to trial).
There probably was a comparative negligence charge as well, and the jury could have alloted a percentage of fault to the plaintiff, though they might not have, considering the size of the award.
What makes the case stand out (and in the news) is a seven figure punitive damages award, not $400,000 compensatory damages. I dont think there was any wilful and reckless conduct to justify that award- it is highly improbable that the defendant would have foreseen that the idiot would become a compulsive gambler.
There are many such cases out there according to the article. It is the unwarranted punitive damages that really destroy the balance. This hit the jackpot/ win the lottery mentality is killing the goose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.