[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Clear Channel Suit
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dibmaine@aol.com>
To: <Sportswriter@dejazzd.com>; <bri@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Clear Channel Suit
> In a message dated 4/1/02 10:44:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Sportswriter@dejazzd.com writes:
>
> << But wouldn't the state have some cap on liability claims from incidents
> such
> as this? For example, I believe Pennsylvania just passed a measure that
> capped medical malpractice claims, or is debating such a piece of
> legislation. Would a jury be able to find Clear Channel liable yet give her
> a lower reward? Would that be up to whatever the state law is or would it be
> up to the judge to instruct the jury that such is possible?>>
>
> I wasn't addressing the size of a possible award. I was addressing the
> remark that Clear Channel would get off scott free. I think a theory of tort
> liability is fairly easy to come up with from the facts that were posted here.
>
> As for the size of the award, that would be regulated by state law. Some
> states have caps on non-economic damages, some do not. In any state, Clear
> Channel could be found liable but a lower award given. It is fair to say
> that a $1.2 billion award is very unlikely.
>
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine
>
If you have not seen this account of the story (Link posted by Chip Austin)
http://www.pressconnects.com/friday/news/stories/ne032902s93907.shtml
Apparently the $1.2 billion figure is the total amount of damages/remedies on 45 separate areas of liability, each with its own dollar figure. Again apparently, each of the 45 counts may be judged independently.
*********************************************************************
Tony Abruzzese e-mail: abruzzese@biochem.bumc.bu.edu
Network Administrator Biochemistry Department
Boston University School of Medicine
Telephone:617.638.5092 Fax:617.638.5339
*********************************************************************