Political Crossfire Forums

[flamboyant]

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Posted 10/10/2006 10:07 PM ET

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm?csp=15

----------------

Someone please defame me right now so I can get my free money! A "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud" - this is worth $11.3 million? Dude, call me an asshat, a C**s**ker and a bastard son of a b**** and maybe we can ratchet up that award to $25 million.

I'm not advocating violence in any way here, but juries that pervert the justice system by awarding these insanely large settlements over something as frivolous as this - seriously, if Darwin had his way these people would be shot and removed from the gene pool.

Oh what's this? Broward County, Flordia? The people there are too stupid to figure out a freakin' butterfly ballot, no wonder they can't comprehend how important it is to take your civic responsibility seriously when you're on a jury.

God I hate that jury. Thank you for providing me the space to rant.

[wyldejackyl]

I agree. It's all part of the pussification of modern America. Don't say anything to me I might not like, that might hurt my feelings or I'll sue you. The patsy jury will somehow side with me and cornhole you for speaking your mind about whatever. The ridiculous settlement tops it all though. You'd think for something as retarded as this (it sounds like something out of a 7th grade popularity scandal), that the judge would throw it out.

Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot? Now every time I buy an extension cord, there's cable ties and plastic labels that aren't easily removed affixed to them telling me how dangerous electricity is. No kidding? Really? I'll try not to use my hair dryer while underwater either. Give me a break!

[Alizard]

wyldejackyl wrote:
Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot?

If you actually had read that case (I did) you would know that the media spun it so that it would l;ook like some woman was trying to get money. Here is what actually happened:

1) Woman is passenger in car that drives up to McD's window and orders coffee to go. Guy gives it to her. He tells driver to move the car.

2) She has no cup holder so she sets it between her legs and the driver pulls up and stops. While attempting to remove the lid, it pops off and her genitals are SCALDED with coffee which was much too hot.

3) She had to go to the hospital. She had third degree burns on the skin of her genitals and thighs.

4) She asked McD's to simply re-imburse her for the cost of the visit (nothing else). They told her to piss off.

FACTS NEVER DISCLOSED IN THE MEDIA:

This was one in a series of people who had received severe burns from McD coffee when the lid popped off and it ran down the side. McD was heating their coffee about 20 degrees hotter than is safe for consumer products.

Attorneys generals had already ordered them to lower the temp to a safe level and McD ignored it.

The punitive damages sought was set high enough that McD would actually "feel it", and stop selling coffee so hot it would scald people and give them second degree burns.

Sorry to destroy another urban myth that people are so fond of.

McD got exactly what they had coming because they sold a dangerous product and ignored warnings that it was hurting people.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm



The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit/////Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

[perdidochas]

Alizard wrote: wyldejackyl wrote:
Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot?

If you actually had read that case (I did) you would know that the media spun it so that it would l;ook like some woman was trying to get money. Here is what actually happened:

1) Woman is passenger in car that drives up to McD's window and orders coffee to go. Guy gives it to her. He tells driver to move the car.

2) She has no cup holder so she sets it between her legs and the driver pulls up and stops. While attempting to remove the lid, it pops off and her genitals are SCALDED with coffee which was much too hot.

3) She had to go to the hospital. She had third degree burns on the skin of her genitals and thighs.

4) She asked McD's to simply re-imburse her for the cost of the visit (nothing else). They told her to piss off.

FACTS NEVER DISCLOSED IN THE MEDIA:

This was one in a series of people who had received severe burns from McD coffee when the lid popped off and it ran down the side. McD was heating their coffee about 20 degrees hotter than is safe for consumer products.

Attorneys generals had already ordered them to lower the temp to a safe level and McD ignored it.

The punitive damages sought was set high enough that McD would actually "feel it", and stop selling coffee so hot it would scald people and give them second degree burns.

Sorry to destroy another urban myth that people are so fond of.

McD got exactly what they had coming because they sold a dangerous product and ignored warnings that it was hurting people.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm



The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.

Well, I agree and disagree. First, back in those days (i.e about 10 yrs ago), I knew people who bought McDonald's coffee, because it was hotter than other coffee. That was a plus for them. It was part of the reason I avoided McD coffee--it took too long for it to cool to a drinkable temperature to me. In that I agree, McD did probably have too hot coffee. On the other hand, any hot coffee (whether it be 180degree McD coffee, or 150 degree Dunkin Donut coffee) is too hot to hold between your legs.

[The Newb]

flamboyant wrote: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Posted 10/10/2006 10:07 PM ET

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm?csp=15

----------------

Someone please defame me right now so I can get my free money! A "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud" - this is worth $11.3 million? Dude, call me an asshat, a C**s**ker and a bastard son of a b**** and maybe we can ratchet up that award to $25 million.

I'm not advocating violence in any way here, but juries that pervert the justice system by awarding these insanely large settlements over something as frivolous as this - seriously, if Darwin had his way these people would be shot and removed from the gene pool.

Oh what's this? Broward County, Flordia? The people there are too stupid to figure out a freakin' butterfly ballot, no wonder they can't comprehend how important it is to take your civic responsibility seriously when you're on a jury.

God I hate that jury. Thank you for providing me the space to rant.

what ever happened to free speech? hmm sounds like things are going in the wrong direction

[Alizard]

perdidochas wrote: Alizard wrote: wyldejackyl wrote:
Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot?

If you actually had read that case (I did) you would know that the media spun it so that it would l;ook like some woman was trying to get money. Here is what actually happened:

1) Woman is passenger in car that drives up to McD's window and orders coffee to go. Guy gives it to her. He tells driver to move the car.

2) She has no cup holder so she sets it between her legs and the driver pulls up and stops. While attempting to remove the lid, it pops off and her genitals are SCALDED with coffee which was much too hot.

3) She had to go to the hospital. She had third degree burns on the skin of her genitals and thighs.

4) She asked McD's to simply re-imburse her for the cost of the visit (nothing else). They told her to piss off.

FACTS NEVER DISCLOSED IN THE MEDIA:

This was one in a series of people who had received severe burns from McD coffee when the lid popped off and it ran down the side. McD was heating their coffee about 20 degrees hotter than is safe for consumer products.

Attorneys generals had already ordered them to lower the temp to a safe level and McD ignored it.

The punitive damages sought was set high enough that McD would actually "feel it", and stop selling coffee so hot it would scald people and give them second degree burns.

Sorry to destroy another urban myth that people are so fond of.

McD got exactly what they had coming because they sold a dangerous product and ignored warnings that it was hurting people.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm



The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.

Well, I agree and disagree. First, back in those days (i.e about 10 yrs ago), I knew people who bought McDonald's coffee, because it was hotter than other coffee. That was a plus for them. It was part of the reason I avoided McD coffee--it took too long for it to cool to a drinkable temperature to me. In that I agree, McD did probably have too hot coffee. On the other hand, any hot coffee (whether it be 180degree McD coffee, or 150 degree Dunkin Donut coffee) is too hot to hold between your legs.

No, you are wrong about:

"On the other hand, any hot coffee (whether it be 180degree McD coffee, or 150 degree Dunkin Donut coffee) is too hot to hold between your legs."

If you read the article I referenced with the link, it goes into detail about how:

"Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

The burn damage decreases EXPONENTIALLY with temperature, so 180 degrees is NOTHING like 155 degrees in terms of risk of severe damage.

And McDonalds was WELL AWARE theyw ere selling a product that was too dangerous too consume in the form they delivered it.

They were (are) arrogant and they should have gotten hit with larger punitive damages considering that fact.

[The Newb]

Alizard wrote: perdidochas wrote: Alizard wrote: wyldejackyl wrote:
Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot?

If you actually had read that case (I did) you would know that the media spun it so that it would l;ook like some woman was trying to get money. Here is what actually happened:

1) Woman is passenger in car that drives up to McD's window and orders coffee to go. Guy gives it to her. He tells driver to move the car.

2) She has no cup holder so she sets it between her legs and the driver pulls up and stops. While attempting to remove the lid, it pops off and her genitals are SCALDED with coffee which was much too hot.

3) She had to go to the hospital. She had third degree burns on the skin of her genitals and thighs.

4) She asked McD's to simply re-imburse her for the cost of the visit (nothing else). They told her to piss off.

FACTS NEVER DISCLOSED IN THE MEDIA:

This was one in a series of people who had received severe burns from McD coffee when the lid popped off and it ran down the side. McD was heating their coffee about 20 degrees hotter than is safe for consumer products.

Attorneys generals had already ordered them to lower the temp to a safe level and McD ignored it.

The punitive damages sought was set high enough that McD would actually "feel it", and stop selling coffee so hot it would scald people and give them second degree burns.

Sorry to destroy another urban myth that people are so fond of.

McD got exactly what they had coming because they sold a dangerous product and ignored warnings that it was hurting people.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm



The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.

Well, I agree and disagree. First, back in those days (i.e about 10 yrs ago), I knew people who bought McDonald's coffee, because it was hotter than other coffee. That was a plus for them. It was part of the reason I avoided McD coffee--it took too long for it to cool to a drinkable temperature to me. In that I agree, McD did probably have too hot coffee. On the other hand, any hot coffee (whether it be 180degree McD coffee, or 150 degree Dunkin Donut coffee) is too hot to hold between your legs.

No, you are wrong about:

"On the other hand, any hot coffee (whether it be 180degree McD coffee, or 150 degree Dunkin Donut coffee) is too hot to hold between your legs."

If you read the article I referenced with the link, it goes into detail about how:

"Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."

The burn damage decreases EXPONENTIALLY with temperature, so 180 degrees is NOTHING like 155 degrees in terms of risk of severe damage.

And McDonalds was WELL AWARE theyw ere selling a product that was too dangerous too consume in the form they delivered it.

They were (are) arrogant and they should have gotten hit with larger punitive damages considering that fact.

way to go good deal mcdonalds wasnt the topic defamation of character on the internet was

[micfranklin]

This sounds like another case where money is wasted on pointless BS, and it should've been thrown out.

[Alizard]

The Newb wrote:
way to go good deal mcdonalds

wasnt the topic defamation of character on the internet

Judge for yourself what the topic is. From the OP:

Quote: It's all part of the pussification of modern America. //

Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot?

The OP seems to be saying that the topic is the pussification of America and how it is causing ridiculous jury awards which are not warranted....

Maybe, but in the McDonald's case, the award was clearly justified and the media just spun it to make it sound ridiculous, while the facts were never presented.

[The Newb]

Alizard wrote: The Newb wrote:
way to go good deal mcdonalds

wasnt the topic defamation of character on the internet

Judge for yourself what the topic is. From the OP:

Quote: It's all part of the pussification of modern America. //

Many years ago some assclown burnt herself with hot coffee. Common sense, right, coffee's hot?

The OP seems to be saying that the topic is the pussification of America and how it is causing ridiculous jury awards which are not warranted....

Maybe, but in the McDonald's case, the award was clearly justified and the media just spun it to make it sound ridiculous, while the facts were never presented.

mcdonalds has warranted proof seems like i did not research it, i dont feel it is relivant here however if you called me a name on the internet i can sue for 11.3 mil? that can never be warranted it infringes on the 1st admendment

[CountryGuy]

Free speech doesn't give you the right to make inaccurate statements about people, i.e. to slander or libel them. Never has. In the case above, the jury found that this person had no grounds for the statements she made.

Now, the award is completely shocking. I thought the size of the awards with regards to punitive damages were based upon the entity sued (i.e. a person would pay far less than a $2 billion corporation). I disagree that the award fits the damages.

[The Newb]

so the people defaming various political figures are liable? specifically political to political slander? it doesnt fit thats why their are no suits the only way she should have been awarded anything is if she had a business that was directly effected by these staements and then only the potential earnings lost should be awarded a lot of people would be very wary of speaking their mind

[CountryGuy]

The Newb wrote: so the people defaming various political figures are liable? specifically political to political slander? it doesnt fit thats why their are no suits the only way she should have been awarded anything is if she had a business that was directly effected by these staements and then only the potential earnings lost should be awarded a lot of people would be very wary of speaking their mind

According to the law, yes they could be liable. However, most politicians probably wouldn't sue, as they'd expect reaction similar to what you're giving now. Also, it wouldn't be worth the costs, as you wouldn't get anything -- Well, at least I thought so until I read this story :lol:

The reason you don't see more suits is that its not worth the effort -- This woman thought it was and was willing to lose money in order to take this blogger to court. She won, and there's definitely tons out there on the Internet that could be considered libelous.

[The Newb]

set precedence? it is worth it now to bad for free speech

[Izzibeth]

guess where that $11.3Million will come from (because the woman OBVIOUSLY can't pay it)... ^_^ go on.. just take a guess.

[CountryGuy]

Not us -- Government isnt responsible for paying civil cases.