Presentation Transcript

1. Today’s Class, Part I New trials for damages. Remittitur and Additur The limits of our attempt to control juries: Peterson v. Wilson.
2. HYPO Jack Bauer sues President Charles Logan for a violation of Bauer’s constitutional rights under Section 1983 (a federal civil rights statute). Bauer presents his evidence to the jury then Logan presents his evidence to the jury. At the close of the evidence, Logan moves for judgment as a matter of law and that motion is denied. The jury then deliberates and returns a verdict for Bauer, awarding Bauer $1,000,000 in damages. Two days later, Logan moves for a JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial. United States District Judge David Palmer thinks there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to render a verdict for Bauer and that the verdict in favor of Bauer was not against the great weight of the evidence. However, Judge Palmer thinks the damages awarded go against the great weight of the evidence. May Judge Palmer order a new trial just on the issue of damages?
3. HYPOS What if the jury returned a verdict in favor of Bauer for $1,000,000, but Judge Palmer thinks damages were more in the range of $500,000 . . . (a) Could Palmer order a new trial unless Bauer accepts only $500,000? (b) What if Judge Palmer thinks the jury’s verdict is too low, may Judge Palmer award Bauer $1.5 million?
4. Peterson v. Wilson
5. HYPO Christian Troy, a Los Angeles-based plastic surgeon, sues Tommy Gavin, a New York firefighter, in federal district court for injuries related to a fight between the two men. The evidence closes and the case is sent to the jury. The jury consists of Sam, Diane, Norm, and Carla, and Clifford, Claire, Denise and Theo. The jury is deadlocked at 4-4. Sam, Diane, Norm, and Carla want the verdict to go to Christian. Cliff, Claire, Denise, and Theo want the verdict to go Tommy’s way. After hours of deliberations, Sam suggests that he and Claire arm-wrestle for the verdict. They do. Jury returns a verdict for Tommy. Christian moves for a new trial and supports the motion with affidavits from Sam, Diane, Norm, and Carla which state that the jury arm-wrestled to decide the case. Should the evidence from the affidavits be considered?
6. HYPO Same jury as in previous hypo. During deliberations, Sam got a phone call from Frasier, who told Sam that Christian has a reputation for being a hot-head and that, just a few weeks ago, Christian got into a fight with Vic Mackey. Sam told everyone else in the jury room about this information and the jury then returned a verdict for Tommy. Christian promptly files a motion for a new trial with affidavits from Diane, Norm, and Carla, who state that they changed their vote as a result of the information from Frasier that Sam passed along to the jury. Should the evidence from the affidavits be considered?
7. Three Issues Related to Appeals: Who can appeal? -Losing party. -Cross-Appeals. -Waiver. When can an appeal occur? -Final judgment rule. -Exceptions to final judgment rule. 3. How does one win an appeal (i.e., substantive standard)?
8. HYPO Phoebe Buffay was performing her signature song “Smelly Cat” for her “friends” when she was injured as a result of slipping on a pool of water that formed in her apartment as a result of a leaky roof. Phoebe sued her landlord for personal injury, invoking two theories under which her landlord had a duty to repair the roof – a duty arising under the lease, and a duty arising under New York City’s housing code. The trial court ruled that a duty was owed under the lease, but that there was no duty under the municipal housing code. The court awarded all the relief for personal injury requested by Phoebe. May Phoebe appeal, contending that a duty arose under the municipal housing code as well?
9. HYPO Ricky Bobby needed a new car, so he went to Jean Girard Imports, Inc. Ricky, however, thinks the dealer sold him a used car instead of a new car. Ricky sues the dealer on two theories: (1) breach of contract; and (2) fraud. Contract damages call for Ricky to recover the difference between the value of the car he received and a new one -- $3,000 in this instance. Punitive damages lie for fraud, and are measured not by Ricky’s loss but by magnitude of the wrong committed by the dealer. The trial court finds that punitive damages are inappropriate, but awards Ricky damages for breach of contract. May Ricky appeal?
10. HYPO The family of Jerry Siegel, who created Superman in 1938, sued Warner Brothers to get a cut of the profits from the television show Smallville and from the 2006 movie Superman Returns. Siegel’s family seeks a share of the domestic and the international profits. A federal district court judge ruled the family is entitled to a share of the domestic, but not international, profits.
11. HYPO Real estate developer Donald Trump hires Ty Pennington, Inc., as the contractor to build the world’s tallest building. In such large building projects, it is typical for the developer to require the contractor to take out an insurance policy to cover the possibility that the contractor cannot finish the job. If this happens, the insurance policy provides funds so the project can be completed. Pennington takes out an insurance policy with State Farm. Unfortunately for all parties, Pennington is unable to complete the project and State Farm has to pay under the insurance policy. State Farm then sues Pennington for fraud. At trial, State Farm’s evidence of fraud consisted of Pennington’s failure to disclose his debts. The lawyer for Pennington does not object to this evidence, though he strenuously argues that the failure to disclose the debts was not material to the formation of the contract (i.e., that State Farm would have insured the contractor even if State Farm had known about the debts). The trial court rules that Pennington committed fraud. May Pennington’s lawyer now successfully appeal on the basis that failure to disclose debts does not, as a matter of law, constitute fraud?
12. HYPO State Farm sues Pennington for fraud. Pennington files a Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenging the complaint on the grounds that State Farm’s complaint alleged only a failure to disclose, not affirmative misrepresentation as required by the substantive law. The trial court denies the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. At trial, State Farm offers a jury instruction that says the failure to disclose amounts to fraud. If you were Pennington’s lawyer, should you object to the instruction so as to preserve Pennington’s argument on appeal that the substantive law requires State Farm to prove something more than a failure to disclose in order to win on a fraud claim?
13. HYPO State Farm sues Pennington for fraud. State Farm wins and Pennington appeals. In its appellate brief in support of the judgment, State Farm’s lawyers come up with a new argument that was not presented to the trial court. Has State Farm waived its right to make the argument?