Chapter 6 Cases Mathias v Accor Economy Lodging Inc Mathias s were bitten by bedbugs when they stayed at a Motel 6 in Chicago They filed suit against the corporation that owns and operates the Motel 6 saying that they refused to act in response to the complaints ignored the evidence of the bedbug problem Mathias s sough both compensatory and punitive damages on the theory that the corporation had engaged in willful and wanton conduct Federal court jury favored the Mathias s 5 000 compensatory 186 000 punitive Corporation appealed saying that any fault on its part did not amount to willful and wanton conduct and therefore the award of punitive damages is unwarranted Corporation says that at worst it is guilty of simple negligence no need for punitive damages however this has no merit bc they failed to avoid a known risk o 1998 EcoLab extermination service found bedbugs but the motel did not hire them to spray the rooms o 2000 guests were getting refunds for the bugs biting manager asked her boss to close the motel while they spray everywhere but they refused o This superior knew the risk of not taking steps to eliminate the bugs his failure of action is imputed to his employer for purposes of determining whether the employer should be liable for punitive damages o Employer s liability is automatic for compensatory damages bc of respondeat superior employers are responsible for torts committed by employees if those torts occurs within the scope of employment Desk clerks began to warn the guests that there were ticks instead of bedbugs even though ticks are worse Rooms that the motel had placed on do not rent bugs in room were still rented out November plaintiff rented room 504 even though the model had classified it as do not rent until treated it had not been treated 190 191 rooms were rented that night Failure to warn guests or to take effective measures to eliminate the bedbugs amounted to fraud and probably to battery as well Garratt v Dailey the defendant would be guilty of battery if he knew with substantial certainty that when he moved a chair the plaintiff would try to sit down where the chair had been and would land on the floor instead There was sufficient evidence of willful and wanton conduct to permit an award of punitive damages How much punitive damages o State Farm v Campbell the court said that 4 times the amount of compensatory damages might be inappropriate few awards exceeding a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process HOWEVER the court did not make either of these a rule just said this would be unreasonable Why should punitive damages be awarded o Relieve the pressures on an overloaded system of criminal justice by providing a civil alternative for minor crimes o Help avoid physical violent actions since compensatory damages can be small limited Why has the court decided that due process requires that punitive awards be o Penal theory says the punishment should fit the crime o Should be based on the wrong done not on the status of the defendant o Defendant should have reasonable notice of the amount so he can decide how to act In this case the defendant s behavior was hard to quantify bc a large element of it was emotional Awarding punitive damages in this case serves the additional purpose of limiting the defendant s ability to profit from its fraud Corporation said that the punitive damages awarded were excessive o A defendant s wealth if not sufficient basis for awarding punitive damages BMW v Gore HOWEVER wealth in the sense of resources enters bc the defendant can have an extremely aggressive defense making litigating against it hard and causing the plaintiff s to spend a lot of money o We cannot say that the award of punitive damages was excessive the number was arbitrary though It would have been helpful if the parties presented evidence concerning the regulatory or criminal penalties that the defendant exposed itself to by deliberately exposing its guests to a substantial risk of bedbugs The corporation s actions exposes itself to criminal fines where it could loose its license so we are sure that the defendant would rather pay the punitive damages than lose its license Howard v Wilson Wilson entered Citi Trends in Mississippi to shop for clothing Wilson was injured when an employee of Citi Trends Howard maliciously recklessly negligently and violently attacked Wilson with a pair of scissors Howard filed a motion to dismiss saying that Wilson did not file the complaint within the one year statute of limitations set forth by a Mississippi statute all actions for assault assault and battery shall be commenced within one year next after the cause of such action accrued Wilson responded to Howard s motion by denying that she was filing an assault and battery claim said she filed a negligence claim Mississippi statute of limitations for negligence sets forth a longer limitations period Trial court denied Howard s motion to dismiss On appeal Howard said Wilson s complaint was for battery and that Wilson s attempt to characterize the incident as an act of negligence was simply an attempt to circumvent the relevant statute of limitations The court has addressed similar issues and each time has prohibited the characterization of an intentional tort as an act of negligence in order to escape the one year bar Dennis v Travelers and City of Mound Bayou v Johnson federal courts Childers v Beaver Dam Plantation Wilson tries to characterize her suit as one for negligence not intentional tort The language Wilson used in her complaint such as bodily injuries and heinous attack are generally akin to a common law assault and battery not as an act of negligence There is no such thing as a negligent assault or a negligent battery Assault a person acts intending to cause harm or offensive contact to another person or an imminent apprehension of such contact Battery goes one step further harmful contact actually occurs Trial court s denial of motion to dismiss reversed Howard wins Durham v McDonald s Restaurants of Oklahoma Durham filed an intentional infliction of emotional distress in OK against his former employer McDonalds Durham said that his manager denied three requests by Durham that he be allowed to take his prescription anti seizure medication the manager called Durham a fucking retard Durham said this caused him to fear he would suffer a seizure left work crying and did not return McDonalds moved for summary judgment
View Full Document
Unlocking...