$109 million personal-injury award in Western Pennsylvania offers insight into tort system
Click to skip ad »
Show Thumbnails
When Carrie Goretzka's two young girls ran out onto the porch of their suburban home 30 miles east of Pittsburgh in the late afternoon on June 2, 2009, what they saw was a scene of unrelenting horror.
»Read story: $109 million personal-injury award in Western Pennsylvania offers insight into tort system
»Read story: $109 million personal-injury award in Western Pennsylvania offers insight into tort system
Comments (100)
Award is outta line. Excellent lawyering, though. Don't hate the playa.— albrock- $109 M is an atrocious award. Her death was horrible and I am sure there is impact on the children and husband but $109M is abusive. The American legal system is self-destructive with its awards. Let me guess....$100 M would go to the attorneys on both sides?— jonline
- The company lawyers are most likely in house or hired by the hour. Something on the order of a third to a half usually goes to injured party. The real problem is that, generally, corporate entities are usually more concerned about the fictively legal corporate "person" than about the actually REAL human being.
This is a case that points to the continuing stupidity of having electrical lines ABOVE rather than BELOW the ground. I know it would be an expensive proposition to get electrical wiring below the ground, but, that is the corporate chant: PROFITS, NOT PEOPLE!.— BEMiller - The damages were computed wrong. A doctorate in engineering from Yale does not make you an expert in calculating damages. Besides Yale is a second rate engineering school. The jury foreman does not know what he talking about. The financial statements of a company mean nothing. This case will be thrown out at appeal.— chippersql
- How much is too much for an agonizing death of a mother, that happened because of carelessness? These corporate types only feel financial punishment, so punish them as much as possible. Does anyone think these two girls will ever be able erase that horrifying image of their mother on fire? It will haunt them for the rest of their lives.— POF
- The customers of the utility company will be the payers in the end. What's wrong about calling from inside the house anyway, I bet the linemen had told her on the previous occasions how dangerous downed wires are.— longbikez
- I don't think so. The company's prices are regulated. The company was clearly culpable. It was down three times and they, clearly, just kept fixing it the same way each time. If the linemen told her, that might offer more proof that she didn't stumble, but that something happened that she couldn't help. If she was warned, I'm guessing she wouldn't have been reckless. — PotteryPete
- Because the company backed out of a $50 million settlement (plus the repairs to the line), they can't expect a $60-70 mil verdict. The gamble would be worth taking. The poor woman was zapped for 20 minutes and lived 3 days. We would euthanize a dog in this situation. This was a preventable death. A horrific death. By the way, @longbikez- you sound like an a''hole.— iodine
- $5 million for spilling coffee on yourself: this award is in line with that.— STEPHEN1988
- You mean $5mm for refusing to operate your coffee makers at the manufacturer's suggested temperature range, as well as going well beyond the allowed temperature range for the cups used, despite numerous prior burn incidents. Not to mention that the executives decided that it was worth the risk of getting sued because they make so much money on coffee that they can withstand a lawsuit or two. The $5mm was calculated based on one day worth of coffee sales. It was more about handing out punishment for disregarding your customers. That's the only power civil justice system have -- to punish by giving out awards. Would you rather trust the government in regulating businesses? — sunzzy
- @sunzzy - I've looked through every conversion formula I could find. How did you turn money, [$] into units of length like millimeters [mm]?? Have you been spending too much time in the Sunzzy? Your grammar by the way, is F'd up. Spend more time awake in schoolzzy. — bad joe s
- Zap.— zen
- She walked toward the line? Didn't have a back door? Yes, horrible and all that, and the family should get some money, but what a moron. Especially if the line has fallen before. "Oh, this time I'll go wrangle the power line myself!" I believe they have an award for this. I think it's called Darwin.— verve
- It's always tricky to come up with the right words when you're trying to think of something to say to a little child who's crying because her mother's on fire.
Who would have that all would be well with that child if you just took a moment to explain that her mommy was a moron? - It's always tricky to come up with the right words when you're trying to think of something to say to a little child who's crying because her mother's on fire.Who would have that all would be well with that child if you just took a moment to explain that her mommy was a moron? (HTML deleted)
- How much of that verdict did the Goretzka family actually receive?— Temple Mad
- iodine: Your right it was a preventable death. People with brains would of stayed inside their house, far away from a downed power line and called the power company from inside their house.— Larry Cheswald
- Disagree with POF "These corporate types only feel financial punishment,..."
Only with prison time for an executive will corps. feel pain.
It appears there's negligence, but I'm not sure about jailtime here.— ald - I agree there. Unless there's proof that the CEO mandated that crappy work be done, there's nothing criminal. Not to mention that the CEO probably has nothing to do with people who would have fixed the line. — PotteryPete
- unless she is an NFL QB, no way is she worth 100M— ekw555
- If that was your wife or mother would you think the same? Especially when she suffered for 3 days? — Niko
- That's really a twisted logic. Someone's life is only worth more if they're high earners? This had nothing to do with her earning potential. She was shocked for 20 minutes and languished for 3 days. She suffered big time. — PotteryPete
- To lose your wife and have one of her children literally watch her burning alive and then hearfing people say that ammount is insane, you are are sick in the head. There is no ammount given that will lessen their pain and suffering, not to mention the mother lived for 3 days with 85% of her burnt. Big companies getting rich off the little guy should be held more acountable and this will give them all fair warning to do a better job! I will bet everyone complaining this is too much would sing a different tune if it was their loved one. Hypocrits!— PhillyTaz
- Obviously, the woman shouldn't have gone near the downed line. However, this power line was faulty and the company was called out at least twice before and failed to do its job. The company has had knowledge of a problem with wires installed improperly but has done nothing.— lulu
- You do not get punitive damages for "carelessness." A plaintiff must prove intentional conduct. And by the way, author, there are guidelines regarding punitive awards. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on such awards in the Exxon Valdez case. Look it up.— Philly Born
- I totally feel for the family, but when I saw this verdict...thought the amount was astonishing. There are a growing number of these crazy awards. Wonder if our overpaid and bloated legislature will fix it? Doubt it.— thepaguy
- the true sham here is the overwhelming amount of money the family lawyers walk away with because it was them who convinced the family to seek such an unprecedented injury award for the sole benefit of packing their own pockets.— theeducator
- PhillyTaz: My loved ones would have enough sense not to go anywhere near a downed power line. The only award this family deserves is the Darwin Award.— Larry Cheswald
- some of these comment's really show phillys education is below third world status— bigtom blew3
- Larry....show me anywhere that it said she went near it...if you read the story you would have seen that no one knew for sure what had happened. There was a fire and she starting calling and for all you know the line fell on top of her. You are a moron to suggest you know what happened and form an opinion based on no facts. The bottom line, the company had warning before they had issues and now a mother was burned to death because they failed to properly fix the problem, not one before but twice. Now comment about something you do not know!— PhillyTaz
- 33% goes to Arlen's kid, as ambulance chasers from around the country must've been lining up for this one. Nothing like benefitting from your dead, self-promoting father, who never did anything for anyone that didn't include a major benefit for himself. Tort reform in this country is such a joke. Obviously, a terrible tragedy, but $109M?? C'mon now...— vdstrading
- Take the amount it will take to fix the 26 thousand or so miles of wire, and multiply it by 3. Why three? One for the husband and one for each daughter. Most companies nowadays take into account the cost of fixing something versus a settlement out of court should something happen. It's a total fact. Hence, the big number against them. Now if they can find that execs were intentionally ignoring their duties to provide properly wired poles, they should go to jail.— beegal99
- PhillyTaz: I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong skills. "She stepped out of the house to call the power company on her cellphone" Why would you even leave the house with a downed power line in the area? A little common sense goes a long way. Something both you and she lack.— Larry Cheswald
- Every time Specter and Kline are featured in one of the numerous articles on this site about their cases they should be required to divulge how much they personally profited from the judgment.— ChescoMom
- Average American household earns around $50,000....and the US is the wealthiest nation.....$109 million really only enriches the greedy trial lawyers....err...leeches! A couple million to the family in arbitration would serve society better than greedy law firms taking $33 million for work not worth near that! WHERE IS THE LIBERAL OUTRAGE??— TruthTeller01
- I don't think there is anything to be outraged about. Its great that an average American family can get satisfaction against a big corporation that would otherwise put them through voice mail. It it great that the Seventh Amendment gives this average American family the opportunity to have their case decided by a jury composed of other average Americans. It was the juries decision after hearing the arguments from the high priced corporate lawyers for the utility that the utility deserved to be punished. Without being there I can't second guess that. The plaintiff's attorneys probably have a fee agreement that gives them a third or maybe 40% of the verdict plus their costs, which will come off the top. Maybe in the end, the attorneys and the plaintiffs split the 109 million. I think you'd be willing to pay 54 million dollars for the right to receive 54 million dollars for yourself. You would make that deal in a heart beat. You think that's too money, but do you think the kids would rather have their mother over 54 million dollars? The liberal outrage here is against your sympathy for this company over these kids. — Bobby257
- Larry...trying to insult me to show your true ignorance is a mute point. The fire was in the distance along with the wire...after that no one knew for sure how she came into contact with the wire and even suggested it "may" have fallen on her. I will bet when you hear a scream while in your house or a loud crashing noise you for one do not stay put but instead go see what happened. Now as far as our conversation goes, I will no longer engage in a one sided conversation where you have nothing eduacted to add and will only insult myself further to show that side of you, so with that I will say GOODBYE!— PhillyTaz
- Shanin Specter really cares. As long as you pay him 33%, that is. Another crooked, blood-sucking leech, just like his old man.— b,ill at,kins
- The government is not good at checking at the free enterprise system, but the plaitiff's bar is. Spector and Kline are getting 50% in this one. It's about the money Mr. Spector and nothing more. Otherwise, you'd be working for the government as a safety inSpector.— boroughboy
- There are so many disturbing facts to this horror story that I don't even know where to begin. From her going outside when there is a downed power line in her yard, the power companys negligence, the children seeing their mother on fire, being electrocuted for a full 20 mins, burns over 85% of her body, to her being allowed to linger in a hospital for three unimaginable days is a lot to take in. How do you figure how much all of that is worth? I don't think anyone can truly understand what this family has been through. You only see this kind of stuff in the movies.— MWW-54
- Maybe she should have made the phone call from in the house... A downed power line, yeah let me go get a closer look... Darwin's Law at it's finest there— LumpDog
The award is 100% appropriate. Obviously, people on this board do not understand the purpose of "punitive damages." Punitive damages are designed to PUNISH, it's like "life without parole." I mean, the company DID KILL SOMEONE, and no one is going to jail. Punitive damages are intended to be severe enough that the offender WILL NEVER CONSIDER taking similar action again and that OTHER companies will learn the same lesson. 100 million for murder, when the company profits hundreds of millions of dollars is in fact quite reasonable.- Not sure why she would go near the wires. From the time I was a kid I was told not to go near downed wires. So much for personal responsibility. Her family should be given a few million for their pain.— zippy1346
- This is Ronald Reagan's fault. Seriously. If power companies need to be regulated -- and I hope nobody says they don't -- then it should be the GOVERNMENT, whether state, federal or both, that does the regulating. Reagan was the great apostle of deregulation at all costs. And yet I prefer government regulation to the after-the-fact "regulation" applied by plaintiffs' lawyers, after somebody is dead and in order to fill their own pockets.— Dave Clemens
- The company is at fault and this family definitely deserves alot of money, like 1-2 million. 109 million is insane. How many business' will be put out of business with one lawsuit? How many jobs will be lost? This is a rightful case, 9 times out of 10 it's somebody looking to get rich, and they do.— neddyflanders
- Until you lose a loved one due to someone else's negligence and work, just shut up. The family deserves every penny they can get from this company.— kd45music
- What so many of you don't understand is that this is not a REWARD for the family, it's PUNISHMENT for the company. That's why the damages are so high--so that the corporation feels the financial pain and the effect is significant enough for them to change their culture of carelessness and mismanagement.
If your two kids had to watch your wife burn to death while they were helpless to stop it, you'd realize that a billion dollars doesn't fix that; it's straight-up malfeasance on the part of a corporate entity that displays a demonstrative history of price-gouging, improper conduct, and lack of public stewardship.— SteveFappig - I believe this award is appropriate, as it will probably cause the company to be sold and new management brought in. The costs will be borne by the stockholders, who previously profited from the poor maintenance.
However, the bigger point is that the law should be changed to pay the punitive damages to the public and not to the plaintiff.— phillyguy36 - Don't forget that juries know that up to 40% of whatever they award is going to the lawyers and they sometimes try to compensate for that by giving an inflated damage award.— intelliwoman
- who walks out towards a down electric line ?— BYEPHILLY
- This is why we should have power lines under ground like most other countries. 100 Million seems more or less fair given the thing fell 3 times. All the corp respond to is money.. if the damages are too low nothing will change.— Gradhospital
- I don't think it's enough, each of the girls will have nightmares the rest of a their lives, they should get equal amounts of 100 mil each. The power company execs who approved the splicing policy should go to jail. The managers and supervisor who oversee the splicing of these wires should go to jail and the union that didn't refuse to use this flawed repair policy should also be sued. This wasn't an accident , this was negligence by the power company from top to bottom. They should pay much more and the union should be ashamed of themselves for following this policy of splicing 7500 k wires.— krautmef1
- and personal responsibility continues to die in the this country. For all the morons who think that "soaking" a corporation is the appropriate response, I guess you don't realize that all that will do is raise rates for their customers. BTW here's a handy tip. Don't go anywhere near downed power lines.— Larry Cheswald
- You don't often read stories in the paper about people who get unfairly low compensation from large corporations in court.
It seems obvious that the company was negligent. Why were there so many improper spliced wires? If there was adequate government inspection, this woman would be alive.
BTW, 30% is standard in this type of cases. If you lose, you get zero. Pretty common knowledge.— pachysandra - Should there be an award. Yes, of course. However, as long as you have juries decide the monetary damages this is to be expected. It's not thier money. At least not directly. All customers will be paying for it indirectly.— TheOnionPeeler
- You see a downed power line always assume it's live and...BAAACK AWAAAAYYY!!! You don't go check it out! You go back in the house and You call 9-1-1 or the power company. The death is tragic but not worth $109 million of which 1/3 goes to the lawyer.— Kolitz
- Take it in a lump sum. Don't go the annuity route or you'll be calling JG Wentworth in no time.— jevans
- Just a few quick points here: 1. Most people do not have landline phones anymore; and, if they are like me, their reception in the house sucks. 2. When a wire goes down, it should blow a fuse up the line, hence why there are so few people electrocuted anymore. When a line goes to ground, all the electrons in the system rush to that point. As they rush along, they create heat which, like in your home, blows fuses. Not only was the power company culpable because that line had fallen; but, the fact that the fail safe fuses (on transformers, reclosures, sectionalizers, and the big fuse in the substation) did not work. There is no way that the distribution controllers in their control room did not see this happening. They let it go on for 20minutes. They could have opened the fuse in the substation to make it stop. It looks like to me, they did not do this probably because it would have meant dropping everyone on that circuit (usually around 1000 people). The company was completely at fault, and if you ask me, callous in their decision making.— Master Dreamz
- This article was shocking, however I did get a charge out of it, soon it will amp up more law suits. If wires are down don't be around. I learnedit in elementary school. Award is way to much money.Way to much.There are positive and negative things to be learned about this incident.It will be over turned on appeal.— TimmyDay
- Thank God there was a well-educated Ph.D. engineer on the jury to understand what happened. The point is not just compensation but also deterrence. The penalty might do some good in that direction.— eekeekeek
- If PA or Federal regulators fined the company $109MM would anyone still cry foul? Don't look at it as enrichment of the victim, look at it as punishment for culpable conduct by the company. Also, what if the $109MM went to the government instead? Would anyone be happy then or would people just complain the government would waste the money anyway.— sunzzy
- Based on some of the comments here, I hope to never be laying in the street bleeding to death. Some of you, by your comments, would kick me several times, cursing me for dirtying the sidewalk with my blood. Since no one actually knows the facts, lets stop blaming the victim here and look at a line that was fixed 3 times--clearly none of them correctly-and understand that the punitive damages are meant to punish a company. Now its not our fault the company punishes the lower level employees but the higher ups should have to take a hit on their bonus or give it up. Sadly that is not the way the world works. I would have awarded more. A mother with two young girls is electrocuted and burning, dies 3 days later leaving behind a husband and two girls who probably cry every night for their mother who will never be able to comfort them again. And for those of you saying she shouldn't have gone outside, its very possible that something on the porch or house was contacting something that was part of the chain of things charged. She may very well have saved one of her kids if they had gone outside and not noticed the downed wire.— ena1977
- F that pay them the 109 million ... better yet bring the kids mom back, no amount of money replaces a life, or the damage to die to these two little girls watching their mother die.— Iknowyourider
- Good thing for them I wasn't on the jury, I would have made them sell the company, and give the money to the victim— sawtooth354
- Though I do agree that the tort system needs revision, in this particular case, the company is solely responsible for the events that occurred. From my understanding, the line has failed previously on 2 separate occasions, the company has issues with maintenance, and I can bet that maintenance calls are not answered or issued promptly. This family is now minus a mother, a wife, and yes it is a horrible way to think about it, a breadwinner. Since a price can not be placed on a life, our only measure is the potential for future financial income. Big business has to start to understand that with service there comes a price. They cannot just charge for a product and not be expected to service that product. If you stand back and look at all our big businesses they seem to start to cut corners in the area of maintenance and upkeep, the airlines, banks, our government. These little girls watched their mother burn to death, heard the screams, it is about time that big business heard those screams as well— divegoddess
- These jury awards never take into consideration what happens to ALL of us with such an award. The death is horrible, COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE FOR BOTH PARTIES, but every first energy customer will pay the price. The company will not operate without profit, shareholders demand it. They will simply increase the rates for every customer to cover this. The family deserves something. I'm sure they had a life insurance policy for around 1 million...so double it and say 2 million. The family valued her at 1 million, so should everyone else. Double it for punative damages. Either way, we are all taught to stay away from powerlines. The fact that she even walked outside to "investigate" was stupid. Call 911 and stay inside. 109 Million is a jury that has no idea what that will do to every citizen living in a first energy market.— Intelligence2008
- Intelligence? This is an absolutely half-witted common tatering! The insurance any individual may have is a combination of at least several things, but one of them is certainly NOT a valuation of the individual insured.
GOOD GRIEF!— BEMiller - I am not for crazy litigation but I see no problem here. You cannot put a price on a Mother but you sure as heck can calculate some pain for the company that caused her death.— scargosun
- What does your assertion, "…cannot put a price on a Mother"?
Obviously, it is the case, but the notion of calculating such a loss into a $&¢ proposition, with a gaggle of greedy lawyers is insane.
Insofar as pain of a corporation, DON'T BE ABSURD. The corporation will pay and move on with not a second thought since the politicians haven't the wherewithall to see they are regulated in a sensible manner.— BEMiller - Lawyers...— ricciaje
- IMO, there is not enuf $$$ in the world to compensate the survivors and the horrible death of this woman. ask urself: would u rather have the $ or be in the family and victim's shoes? easy answer for me. the company (also my electric, no complaints here) should not cut corners, salaries, etc. when there are obvipus problems. create a few more jobs and hire technicians to inspect their lines. they have the $.— tfcino1
- West Penn's attorneys will file appeal after appeal and drag this out for years to come. The husband and two daughters will never see a dime of that money. This verdict was meant to send a message and to make an example out of West Penn.— spz74
- and... this story shows (paying attention Mitt?) that corporations are NOT people"...— tfcino1
- I cannot comprehend the mindset that informs so many of these comments. Who cares what you arrogant jerks were told as children? We all know to avoid downed power lines, but accidents do happen. I'll ask you smug jerks this question: Who was more responsible for this horrible death, the company or the victim? Since this line had fallen TWICE before, the overwhelming responsibility belongs to the power company. The refused to make a proper repair and a young mother died a gruesome death as a result. The line was not on the ground at first, it was in a tree. The victim most likely did not imagine that it would fall to the ground. Certainly it was risky and foolish to go anywhere near he line, but she was trying to report the incident. How many accidents does it take before the company took seriously the risk to families living beneath these high power lines? While they may not really get all that money, they deserve a huge payout...— Getinline
- look this was a tragedy X10....bottom line is...THEY DIDNT GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST 2 TIMES!!!!if they got it right after the first drop....we are not having this discussion!!!— Chatnboy
- This is a sad tragedy that could have been avoided had the company done a better job attaching the wire and the mother not going near a downed wire. However even though so sad, $109 million is over the top. The suit should have been filed in Pittsburgh not Philadelphia... but Philly is known for its run away jury verdicts (and Alabama BTW). Why do you think our medical and car insurance cost twice as much as most of the country? We pay for these run away verdicts personally.— citizen zen
- Punitive damages should not be collected by the individuals. The laywers should get no percentage of these "damages". If they are to be a deterrent, which I agree with, then the money should go into a catastrophic fund. Uses of the fund can be designated by the politicians. That means the family would still have received $48 million, less attorney fees, less attorney out of pocket expenses meaning the family would get about $30 million. The Fund would have almost $62 million that could be used to benefit society.
www.recalblondellreynoldsbrown.org
— SPENDSPEND - there is a misunderstanding here. certainly, the most important issue here is that the line had fallen multiple times before without attempt to figure out why and prevent it. But hte biggest misunderstanding is why an award would be so big. If the jury had awarded $5million, then you are faced with a company doing the math to decide if itis cheaper to just pay out the occasional lawsuit, or fix the problem, whichever costs less. When you award over a hundred million, you force the company, and all the other ones to make sure that the electric lines are safe. Do others (we) pay for it? In our business friendly world, i would say yes, they pay money. But if the award was smaller, others will also pay for it, but with their lives. Since the government is in the hands of big businesses (who can afford more and better lawyers every single time) the courts are the last place that individuals can force businesses to do the right thing for society. Are there unreasonable verdicts out there, absolutely. But ask yourself what award would make this company do the right thing about the poorly installed electrical lines, and suddenly this award seems much more reasonable.— doc al
- shoulda stayed in the house,but you know how Caucasians are— dmac6419
- How much is too much some ask...but it goes on both sides. How much is too much of carelessness and how much is too much when these lawyers start to get greedy? It is a shame on both sides....the family's pain and the lawyers greed.— lmoday
- Hopefully this will teach the power company to be more responsible. However, the mother should never have went near the downed powerline,.— mystikast
- People hate companies so much that they become illogical when it comes to stuff like this. They lose their minds.. Sad loss of life. $109 Million? Really?— StraightottaPhilly
- The reason so many think the award is too high is that very few of us would think to ask for that kind of money. Most of us would take 10 to 12 million, bury our loved one and move on as best we could. Enter the lawyers and now we are talking about Cole Hammels money.— towman
- award is not enough. 109 million if probably what the power company's CEO makes in a few years salary plus stock and benefits.— Ryan
- So many act like the money is grown on trees or taken from the salary of the electric company executives. It comes from insurance. WE pay the awards in Philadelphia with our ridiculous premiums. The can't swing a dead cat without hitting a lawyer in this town and the ignorant, albeit empathetic, juries makes us liable to pay for these windfalls with our astronomical premiums. Other jurisdictions do not give these windfalls so the citizens of those areas do not pay as much for insurance as we do. I moved into the city and my premiums all doubled. Its not only our over litigious citizens with their hands out for every little thing, its the lawyers importing lawsuits to be heard in front of the ignorant Philadelphia juries is the real story Are you all so generous that you want to pay for the failings of the electricians?— citizen zen
- How much you want to bet this piece was somehow paid for by Kline & Specter? More publicity = more cases for them. Way to go Inky!— Bede19025
- The company ONLY has to pay 25%? They should count their lucky stars. Should have to give it all up. When you gamble in court, whether civil or criminal, be real careful.— maldorer
Actually, paragraphs 2, 3, & 4 come across as pretty funny! (LOL!!!)- Her kids witnessed her death. Jesus, those poor kids. They will have that burned into their memories forever. Is there a real and accurate price for two toddlers having to watch their mother slowly be incinerated in what they thought was a safe and happy place?
Not so sure that 109 mill is not a good figure to give out. This company did eff up a lot. And I am a tort reform/pro capitalist guy. But this was a terrible result of some lax standards. They do need to have some skin in the game here...— Poppys - Small children watching their mother burn to a crisp on a downed power line because the company used shoddy repair methods to save a couple of bucks. $109 million isn't enough.— alak0926
- I wonder if Spector has experts who would blow a hole in his old mans single bullet theory?— MWW-54
- Mega companies such as this one, who lobby so they have favorable laws, deserve judgments such as this when they do wrong. This isn't a case of a worker cut a corner one day, this is a case where it was a Management decision to splice wires across a 26,000 mile network to save on costs. In addition this award was less than half of this companies retained earnings for one year. What is the problem and how is it causing economic harm to this Company?— BigE
- maybe the award was out of line however if we the people are offered a plea agreement and refuse and then we dont fare as well with the jury which is the point of a plea deal then we are stuck with it. this arrogant company had a plea agreement and backed out to try there luck with the jury. so why is there any questions?? make them pay the full amount that was awarded and they would be held the same as we the people when we decline a plea deal— stayoutofphilly
- #1 issue is there are no guidelines. I personally was part of the same situation. I was on a jury that it was obvious that the doctor was guilty of malpractice. But we were given no guidelines to determine how much to award. The people on this jury started throwing numbers like 2 million around. I was the lone one who asked where did that # come from? The child was OK there was no permeant damage. The family was clearly entitle to an award. I felt somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000 was in order based on the kids age, amount of time, and pain a suffering. These people were set on at least 1 million. They just wanted to give that # away. when it was over the judge came in with the defense attorney and asked where we came up with that #? I said ask them, if it wasn't for me it would have been 2x as much. Clearly there needs to be some kind of guidelines.
— puddydawg - Why wasn't Bush and the Republican Party named as Defendants? Bush and the Republicans let companies from Big Power sacrifice safety of women, children, minorities, and gays for profit. Bush should have not only been sued, but charged in her death.— eldiablodelsol2009
- Why wasn't Bush and the Republican Party named as Defendants? Bush and the Republicans let companies from Big Power sacrifice safety of women, children, minorities, and gays for profit. Bush should have not only been sued, but charged in her death.— eldiablodelsol2009
- In this sort of case, the jury is instructed to arrive at an award that will cause appropriate financial pain to the defendant corporation and evidence is presented regarding the corporation's finances. The jury would be told to award enough to make it hurt but not so much as to put the company out of business. So in deciding on the amount of punitive damages the jury knew what the company's revenues were and was able to decide on an amount that was sufficient to hurt it. If the jury had awarded only 10,000,000 of punitive damages, although it is a tremendous amount of money, it was probably such a small part of this company's revenues that the jury did not think it would hurt enough. I am certain those folks on that jury have the same sensibilities as the people commenting on this article, but after actually hearing the evidence that is what they decided.— Bobby257
- The company's negligence killed a mother of two young children in a horrific and extremely painful way. This was not the first or second time the line came down put the THIRD. This company is fortunate it is not shut down entirely and this punitive damage award should get the attention of the people in charge to do a better job. This award is appropriate when one considers that human beings that kill another person are put in jail for life or receive the death penalty. All this utility company has to do is pay a fraction of its profits. If the company, and others like it, don't have to pay significant damage awards in cases where they kill someone, what is their incentive to improve safety and protect the public?— C Francis
- too many lawyers in government making the laws— jr23
1
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: