You cannot make this shit up - Two football officials arrested.

[stjaba]

Even in cases where liability is not a certainty it can still make a lot of sense to act proactively to deal with prospective claimants.  Those circumstances vary from case to case.

Which is my point here. For instance, in a car accident case, where liability is clear, and damages exceed coverage limits, it would be silly to contest the claim. In that circumstance, it makes sense to be proactive. Really, any time insurance limits are less than damages, a proactive strategy makes senses.

However, in circumstances where plaintiffs have inherent disadvantages, being so proactive isn't logical. For instance, in medical malpractice cases, in Florida there is actually a required pre-suit discovery and mediation process. It is my understanding that despite the required pre-suit process, those cases are never resolved pre-suit. The reason is that medical malpractice cases are hard to prove and expensive to litigate. So, defendants have an inherent advantage. That is even more the case in police misconduct litigation.

[Malthus]

Look at it from the other side. What was the damages, assuming the cop makes a full and fair apology?

Aside from heaping on punitive damages, which is always an exciting prospect in the US I understand (  ), there would be reputational losses and some for humiliation and inconvenience for spending a night in the hoosegow. The big one would be whether the refs could prove reputational losses, but given the obviously egregious nature of the cop's conduct and the absurdity of the charges, that may be difficult.

Aside from punitive-type awards, which I admit are the wild card, the case may not be worth big bucks, which should encourage an early settlement as the costs of litigating it would not be worth it where there is an open apology in place. 

[katmai]

Fucking languish lawyers.

[lustindarkness]

Fucking languish lawyers.

No thank you, none of them are my type.

[katmai]

Fucking languish lawyers.

No thank you, none of them are my type.

DADT isn't in effect no more Lusti, no need to be hiding!

[Berkut]

I think the question of disciplinary action against the officers is probably much more interesting than any potential lawsuit. I think Malthus is basically correct - actual damages seem rather minor.

[stjaba]

Third, while pre-suit settlement occurs on a regular basis, it is unusual in the context of police misconduct litigation, even in "egregious" cases. This is because of the uneven playing field between plaintiffs and defendants. If a town employs the early and easy settlement strategy, it is just setting itself up for more lawsuits. The fact that a town settles frequently  could even be used as evidence of an unconstitutional custom that would be helpful for future litigants, so for that reason alone I doubt a city would normally do what you suggest.

This isnt exactly the run of the mill police misconduct case is it?

Sure it is. In fact, in the scheme of things, it is somewhat minor. There are no injuries. The refs were in and out of jail in a matter of hours. The charges were dropped immediately. What are the damages going to be? Probably $20,000 or $30,000 at most? Possibly as low as $5,000.

There are plenty of police misconduct cases where plaintiffs are beat up, with life long injuries, or are killed, in circumstances that are clearly unjustified too. And yet law enforcement routinely gets away with it.

For instance, read the following facts from a police misconduct case:

In the early hours of May 8, 2005, Melanie Williams, then seven and a half months pregnant with her first child, noticed that she had begun to bleed vaginally. Concerned, she began to drive herself to St. Vincent's Medical Center. En route, Williams ran a red light. Less than one mile from the hospital, Williams pulled over when signaled to stop by Deputies Sirmons and Mills. After Sirmons approached her car, Williams explained to him that she was pregnant, bleeding, and on her way to the hospital. Sirmons appeared unconcerned and requested Williams' drivers' license and proof of insurance and inquired whether she owned the car she was driving. After receiving the requested documents, Sirmons returned to his patrol car to verify her identity and issue a traffic citation. Williams then fled from the stop in her vehicle. Mills and Sirmons pursued Williams with their lights and sirens on.

Williams drove directly to the hospital's emergency vehicle bay with Sirmons and Mills close behind. As Williams exited her car, Sirmons grabbed her arm and told her that she was going to jail. Williams pulled free and ran towards the emergency room yelling, "Help! I'm pregnant and bleeding." Williams stopped at two locked doors in the emergency room, still calling out for help. Sirmons caught up to Williams and wrapped his arms around her, causing them both to fall to the floor. Sirmons dislocated his shoulder in the fall. Sirmons got up, and Mills took Sirmons' place, kneeling atop the prone Williams while he unhurriedly handcuffed her. All the while, Williams was struggling to stand up and pleading with the deputy to get off her stomach because she was pregnant. The deputies then arrested Williams.

Mills took Williams to the patrol car where he allowed her to be examined by a nurse from the hospital. Thereafter, Williams was admitted to the hospital and found to be bleeding vaginally and in premature labor. Her physicians successfully staved off the premature labor and Williams was released from the hospital ten days later.

In that case, the court ultimately concluded that the force applied was de minimis, and that the officers were justified in applying force because probable cause existed for the arrest.

[stjaba]

Aside from punitive-type awards, which I admit are the wild card, the case may not be worth big bucks, which should encourage an early settlement as the costs of litigating it would not be worth it where there is an open apology in place.

Agreed, but conversely I think that actually incentives not settling the case. If the local lawyers know that the city doesn't easily settle peanut cases, they aren't going to take them in the first place. Or at least the good lawyers will pass them up.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the city shouldn't settle the case, but I see no reason to do it so early in the process.

Also, in the context of municipal liability, often times the lawyer defending the case is a city employee, so the relative costs of defending the case are low.

[DGuller]

Which is my point here. For instance, in a car accident case, where liability is clear, and damages exceed coverage limits, it would be silly to contest the claim. In that circumstance, it makes sense to be proactive. Really, any time insurance limits are less than damages, a proactive strategy makes senses.

Is that kosher? My impression is that insurer is obligated to defend as if they're liable for the whole thing, or they would not be acting in good faith (since the policyholder will be stuck for the difference while not even controlling the legal defense).  Of course, that could just be the idealistic theory that diverges greatly from actual practice.

[Malthus]

Fucking languish lawyers.

As a general statement, absolutely. But not, we hope, by you. 

[stjaba]

Which is my point here. For instance, in a car accident case, where liability is clear, and damages exceed coverage limits, it would be silly to contest the claim. In that circumstance, it makes sense to be proactive. Really, any time insurance limits are less than damages, a proactive strategy makes senses.

Is that kosher? My impression is that insurer is obligated to defend as if they're liable for the whole thing, or they would not be acting in good faith (since the policyholder will be stuck for the difference while not even controlling the legal defense).  Of course, that could just be the idealistic theory that diverges greatly from actual practice.

Insurers are obligated to defend as if they are liable for the whole thing. If the insured is a normal person (i.e not a company), plaintiff's attorneys realize that it makes no sense to try and demand anything beyond the normal policy limits. So typically, in a catastrophic case, the plaintiff's attorney will demand the policy limits right off the bat. It is in both the insurer and the insured's best interest for the insurer to pay the policy limits. For the insurer, if they don't pay the policy limits, they may get hit with a bad faith claim. For the insured, they could get hit with an excess judgment. In those circumstances (insured hit with an excess judgment), the plaintiff's attorney would then probably settle his case with the insured,  with the insured paying nothing, but then assigning his bad faith claim against his insurer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could then go after the insurer for the total amount of damages, not just the policy limits, plus potentially seek punitive damages and attorney's fees. 

[crazy canuck]

However, in circumstances where plaintiffs have inherent disadvantages, being so proactive isn't logical.

Agreed, but this is such a blatant case of an abuse of police power that anyone who has potential liability would be well advised to act proactively.  Not only becuase of the potential legal liability but also because of the reputation risk of defending this conduct.

[crazy canuck]

Sure it is. In fact, in the scheme of things, it is somewhat minor. There are no injuries. The refs were in and out of jail in a matter of hours. The charges were dropped immediately. What are the damages going to be? Probably $20,000 or $30,000 at most? Possibly as low as $5,000.

There are plenty of police misconduct cases where plaintiffs are beat up, with life long injuries, or are killed, in circumstances that are clearly unjustified too. And yet law enforcement routinely gets away with it.

This is a case of abuse of power not a case of assault.  It is hard to think of a case that is more blatant than this.  If cases of such abuse are common in your jurisdiction then you have some huge issues.

[crazy canuck]

Aside from heaping on punitive damages,

Even in Canada that is where most of the damage would be awarded by the court for this kind of abuse of power.  Even in Canada the award would be significant and well worth going through the litigation process.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed, but conversely I think that actually incentives not settling the case. If the local lawyers know that the city doesn't easily settle peanut cases, they aren't going to take them in the first place. Or at least the good lawyers will pass them up.

That theory holds for actions that are bound to happen on a fairly regular basis.  How often do you think cops, acting as security guards, are going to arrest members of the officiating crew at a school game?