JIB in the News

[dps]

I imagine the wrong doing on the part of JIB would be failure to call the police for an incident occurring on their property.

Probably something along those lines.  But it's not clear from the article that they didn't call the police.

[stjaba]

How, exactly, is a business best placed to prevent car accidents in its parking lot?  Slips and falls I can see, because you have a responsibility to keep your walkways and such clean and clear, but auto accidents?

I was referring to normal auto accidents that occur on the road, not ones that occur on the premises of a business. Obviously, if an auto accident involves any kind of serious injury, typically there will be litigation, or at a minimum some kind of settlement pre-suit. I think it's a fair statement that defendant auto drivers are the ones best placed to avoid auto accidents.

I think it's extremely unusual for a business owner to be sued for an auto accident that occurs on its premises, though I know of at least one instance where Target was sued by someone who got hurt in a car accident in a Target parking lot. The plaintiff theorized that Target negligently designed the parking lot, which caused the accident. I think the parties had to bring in dueling experts on  "human factors," one who theorized that the parking lot appropriately considered human factors, and that other one who had an opposite opinion. 

Since most drivers have liability insurance and serious auto accidents are extremely rare in parking lots, I think these kinds of suits are very uncommon.

[Razgovory]

I imagine the wrong doing on the part of JIB would be failure to call the police for an incident occurring on their property.

Probably something along those lines.  But it's not clear from the article that they didn't call the police.

No, but I doubt a news article written after the trial played a major factor in the case.

[alfred russel]

I am not so sure about that. I don't think government insurance (i.e Social Security) is a paradigm of efficiency.

I actually think that it is. To compare a government program that has a more direct private sector counterpart, Medicare gets quite a bit more health care per dollar than private insurers. It helps when you don't need to turn a profit or do much marketing, and it really helps when you have laws that help you dictate terms.

And modified liability schemes do not necessarily eliminate litigation and/or create their own problems.

For instance, in Florida, auto accidents are "no fault" when damages do not exceed $10,000. Drivers are required to purchase no fault insurance. If drivers are injured, but only modestly, they don't need to file a lawsuit and they can have their medical bills taken care of by their own insurer. In addition, they can get some lost wages paid. In theory, this what you want: plaintiffs must insure themselves, whether they are injured due to their own fault or others. I believe that the theory was that no fault insurance would drive down litigation costs.

In practice, no fault insurance has led to an explosion of fraud in Florida. People stage accidents, go to shady doctors who run up bills in exchange for a medical opinion that allows people to make lost wage claims, etc. In response, insurance companies basically have to now go through the time and expense of closely scrutinizing claims, hiring lawyers to put claimants under oath (similar to a deposition in a lawsuit), etc. In other words, while the no fault system was supposed to reduce expenses and costs, associated with low level claims, it hasn't done a good job of that. Additionally, because so many doctors and clinics were engaging in shady practices, insurance companies began short-changing them on reimbursements. In response, the clinics started filing lawsuits against insurance companies. It's a big mess. And ultimately the no fault system probably introduced as many problems as it solved.

For some time Florida has had a reputation as the state with arguably the worst insurance regulation in the country, which would be quite an achievement considering the competition.

That said, I don't think I've gotten across my point of view. In cases where there has been harm caused by the actions of others, such as when you drive into my car after you run a red light, I think it is important that one side be able to successfully sue. JR mentioned a scenario earlier where a beam falls on a customer in a store. I do believe there is a reasonable expectation that stores maintain their structural integrity, and if they fail to do so should be liable to correct the wrong.

The JiB situation appears to be quite different: a serious crime was committed, those culpable are insolvent, and the only potential deep pockets contributed the situation tangentially at best.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe the plaintiff's attorney "theorized" that JiB's demonic clown logo drove its customers into a sociopathic rage.

[stjaba]

That said, I don't think I've gotten across my point of view. In cases where there has been harm caused by the actions of others, such as when you drive into my car after you run a red light, I think it is important that one side be able to successfully sue. JR mentioned a scenario earlier where a beam falls on a customer in a store. I do believe there is a reasonable expectation that stores maintain their structural integrity, and if they fail to do so should be liable to correct the wrong.

The JiB situation appears to be quite different: a serious crime was committed, those culpable are insolvent, and the only potential deep pockets contributed the situation tangentially at best.

Negligent security cases are somewhat of an outlier in that the jury is unable to apportion fault to the attacker. Normally, at least in many states, juries are permitted to apportion fault among all potentially responsible parties.* As Minsky stated, some states have the rule that J&S apply if a tortfeasor is found to be responsible for at least 50% of the damages. But in any event, in most negligence cases, at least in many states a deep pocket that only tangentially contributed to an accident will not be liable for the entire amount of damages. So your concern is really limited to a very small subset of circumstances.

Then the question is in the subset you are concerned about: who should the loss of beatdowns fall on: victims or Jib? Jib in theory can spread the risk of loss of a beatdown of one customer to all of its customers. Isn't it more logical to have the loss spread to all customers as opposed to concentrated solely on the unlucky SOB who got beat up?

*One major exception to this rule involve defective products. In those cases, generally speaking everyone involved in the chain of distribution is essentially jointly and severally liable for any defects. Usually, but not always, parties will secure indemnification agreements from parties up-stream in the chain of distribution.

AR, I am curious, are you philosophically ok with a retailer being fully liable for a defective product, even if the product contained a hidden defect that the retailer had no knowledge of, and in no way the retailer did anything wrong other than selling the product?

[alfred russel]

Negligent security cases are somewhat of an outlier in that the jury is unable to apportion fault to the attacker. Normally, at least in many states, juries are permitted to apportion fault among all potentially responsible parties.* As Minsky stated, some states have the rule that J&S apply if a tortfeasor is found to be responsible for at least 50% of the damages. But in any event, in most negligence cases, at least in many states a deep pocket that only tangentially contributed to an accident will not be liable for the entire amount of damages. So your concern is really limited to a very small subset of circumstances.

Then the question is in the subset you are concerned about: who should the loss of beatdowns fall on: victims or Jib? Jib in theory can spread the risk of loss of a beatdown of one customer to all of its customers. Isn't it more logical to have the loss spread to all customers as opposed to concentrated solely on the unlucky SOB who got beat up?

I'm not certain that our definition of "tangential" is the same. I think the subset as I would define might be larger than what you would. 

For the reasons I've explained, I think it is most logical, under our current legal system, for the loss to be concentrated on the SOB that got beat up.

I won't rehash all the many reasons already stated for this, but among them are the somewhat random actions of jury outcomes and the high costs of litigation. This case in particular seems like an award of "jackpot justice" rather than a cold calculation of the guys loss. As evidence of this: the jury calculated damages of $25m, but only have him $20m. Attorney fees will eat away at that further. So this guy is going to get considerably less than the what he lost, his family is unlikely have the means to make up the difference, and the payment has been delayed for years by litigation. However, his camp seems overjoyed by the outcome, and attributed the outcome to God. Maybe that is a hint the amount was a bit excessive?

Some ideas that could improve this: loser pays, so the attorney fees don't cut into his winnings, nontangible damages capped by a strict formula, medical awards paid into a trust released only to medical providers (and ideally provided through a program like Medicare)--leftover funds returned to the defendant, shortfalls covered by the defendant.

*One major exception to this rule involve defective products. In those cases, generally speaking everyone involved in the chain of distribution is essentially jointly and severally liable for any defects. Usually, but not always, parties will secure indemnification agreements from parties up-stream in the chain of distribution.

AR, I am curious, are you philosophically ok with a retailer being fully liable for a defective product, even if the product contained a hidden defect that the retailer had no knowledge of, and in no way the retailer did anything wrong other than selling the product?

Yes.

But I hesitate to say anything is "philosophical" about this--including in the JiB case.

[Admiral Yi]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of beatdown victims get jack shit, except maybe the justice of seeing the perps do time.

[Sheilbh]

Does the government not do anything?

Here we've go a scheme that, in certain circumstances, pays compensation to victims of violent crime.

[Razgovory]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of beatdown victims get jack shit, except maybe the justice of seeing the perps do time.

A beating should be educational.  You should explain how the person got in this situation and suggest not calling me fucking names while I'm minding my own business walking in the park

[Eddie Teach]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of beatdown victims get jack shit, except maybe the justice of seeing the perps do time.

A beating should be educational.  You should explain how the person got in this situation and suggest not calling me fucking names while I'm minding my own business walking in the park

What names should we be careful not to call you?

[Razgovory]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of beatdown victims get jack shit, except maybe the justice of seeing the perps do time.

A beating should be educational.  You should explain how the person got in this situation and suggest not calling me fucking names while I'm minding my own business walking in the park

What names should we be careful not to call you?

Everything I said was hypothetical.

[Admiral Yi]

Does the government not do anything?

Here we've go a scheme that, in certain circumstances, pays compensation to victims of violent crime.

I think a view jurisdications might have compensation schemes; not really sure.

[stjaba]

AR, I am curious, are you philosophically ok with a retailer being fully liable for a defective product, even if the product contained a hidden defect that the retailer had no knowledge of, and in no way the retailer did anything wrong other than selling the product?

Yes.

How do you square that with your generalized opposition to tangentially involved, deep pockets being fully liable? How is a retailer that sells a defective product without any knowledge of the defect (or any way to become knowledgeable about the defect for that matter) or any control of the defect any more "responsible" than Jib?

[Eddie Teach]

The retailer chooses which items to stock, they don't choose what kind of people are going to be hanging out in their parking lot. I don't think anybody would be too upset if JiB was on the hook for food poisoning claims that were really the fault of their supplier.