Hypocrite of the week: Robert Bork

[ChumpDumper]

Robert Bork Sues Yale Club for More Than $1 Million

By David Glovin

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork sued the Yale Club of New York City for more than $1 million, claiming he tripped and fell because of the club's negligence as he ascended a dais to give a speech.

Bork, 80, a former Yale Law School professor, said the club was grossly negligent for failing to provide steps or a handrail between the floor and dais at an event for the New Criterion magazine last June, according to a complaint filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court.

"Because of the unreasonable height of the dais, without stairs or a handrail, Mr. Bork fell backwards as he attempted to mount the dais, striking his left leg on the side of the dais and striking his head on a heat register,'' he said in the complaint.

Bork is seeking more than $1 million in damages and punitive damages. The fall caused a "large hematoma,'' or swelling, on his leg that burst, requiring surgery and months of physical therapy, and it left him with a limp, he said in the complaint.

"There were dozens of witnesses to the incident, and Judge Bork suffered serious injuries as a result of the Yale Club's gross negligence,'' Bork's lawyer, Randy Mastro of Los Angeles- based Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, said in an interview.

Bork was a speaker at a dinner in honor of New Criterion co- founder Hilton Kramer and to launch the publication's 25th anniversary, magazine office manager Cricket Farnsworth said. Bork gave his speech after the fall, she said.

'Excruciating Pain'

Timothy Hill, a spokesman for the Yale Club, which on its Web site calls itself a "historic clubhouse'' for Yale alumni, declined to comment.

Bork claims the Yale Club was grossly negligent for not having a "safe dais and stairs,'' a supporting handrail or any other "reasonable support feature.''

"Bork suffered excruciating pain as a result of this injury and was largely immobile during the months in which he received physical therapy,'' he said in the complaint.

Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court failed in 1987 after Democrats in Congress and others opposed the conservative legal scholar. At the time of his nomination by then-President Ronald Reagan, he served as a federal appeals court judge in Washington.

Bork, a Yale Law School teacher for more than 15 years before his appointment to the bench, was rejected by the Senate by a 58-42 vote after critics said his legal views were too extreme.

Punitive Damages

Bork didn't ask for a specific amount of punitive damages in his lawsuit. In a June 2002 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Bork suggested there might be instances where punitive damage awards are excessive.

"Proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate,'' Bork and a co-author wrote in an article that discussed Congress's power to regulate commerce.

In a 1995 opinion piece published in the Washington Times, Bork and Theodore Olson, who later became a top Justice Department official, criticized what they called the "expensive, capricious and unpredictable'' civil justice system in the U.S.

"Today's merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation -- anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates,'' they wrote.

The Supreme Court in February tightened the constitutional limits on punitive damages, setting aside a $79.5 million award in a smoker case against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit.

The case is Bork v. Yale Club, 07-cv-4826, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aLEUcipuuuno&refer=news

The ironing is delicious.

[Yonivore]

Okay, I'm going to break my self-imposed don't-respond-to-the-idiot's-posts to see if you can explain what is ironic or hypocritical about the story or Judge Bork's action.

Can't wait.

[boutons_]

Pussysucker, Bork and other ultra-conservative radicals are all for institutions crushing individuals rights and protections (eg, just like France favors institutions to individuals), eg, castrating tort law.

But Bork himself gets injured, his frailty and bad health being no fault of anybody but himself, nobody forcred him to go up on the "dais of death" after all, so he hires an slimy ambulance chaser to use tort law to the max to line his pockets.

"Depends on whose ox is being gored"

[PixelPusher]

Okay, I'm going to break my self-imposed don't-respond-to-the-idiot's-posts to see if you can explain what is ironic or hypocritical about the story or Judge Bork's action.

Can't wait.
I can't wait to see what sophistry you employ to prove Bork is not a hypocrite.

[clambake]

I can't wait to see what sophistry you employ to prove Bork is not a hypocrite.

Don't take the bait, Yoni.

It's suicide.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay, I'm going to break my self-imposed don't-respond-to-the-idiot's-posts to see if you can explain what is ironic or hypocritical about the story or Judge Bork's action.

Can't wait.
I'd like to know too. Seems like to me that certain safety laws have been lax there!
Pussysucker, Bork and other ultra-conservative radicals are all for institutions crushing individuals rights and protections (eg, just like France favors institutions to individuals), et, tort law. [/QUOTE]
What? It is the liberals who keep imposing freedom impeding laws. Bork a radical? What are you smoking. Send some my way please...

France? Do you realize the ramifications of their most recent election?

But Bork himself gets injured, his frailty and bad health being no fault of anybody but himself, so he hires an slimy ambulance chaser to use tort law to the max to line his pockets.

"Depends on whose ox is being gored"Now I do think this is going too far from just initial impressions, but we don't know all the details. He is an old man. They knew he is as old as he is. Maybe he or his people requested a hand rail and it was never installed. Maybe once it wasn't there, he didn't feel like asking for assistance up the stairs. Pride can cause problems...

Am I right about this fictional account? Probably not. I am just an open minded person who tries not to jump to conclusions.

I can't wait to see what sophistry you employ to prove Bork is not a hypocrite.
Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser?

The accusation is Hypocrite isn't it?

If you are one who wants to live by guilty until proven innocent, then please move to a country that has such values. Don't pollute America with such nonsense.

[FromWayDowntown]

It is interesting that Judge Bork would rail so publicly against the imposition of punitive damages (or at least the Congressional or even constitutional limitations on such damages) yet is willing to take advantage of the existence, for his own benefit, of the very laws that he is so willing to decry in his writings.

I suppose that if Judge Bork was so steadfastly against the availability of punitive damages and a true-believer concerning the supposedly deleterious effect that such awards have on merchants and premises owners, one might expect that he would resist the opportunity to put a premises owner to that penalty and settle for obtaining only an award for his actual damages -- his medical expenses, his pain and suffering, and any psychic injuries that he claims to have suffered. His refusal to do that, it might be argued, smacks either of opportunism or hypocrisy.

Otherwise, his lawsuit is a tacit admission that there are at least instances in which punitive damages are acceptable in our civil justice system. I don't have any particular quarrel with that argument, but it does seem surprising in this case, given Judge Bork's earlier writings. And it does seem to cut against some rather fundamental tort reform arguments.

[PixelPusher]

Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser?

The accusation is Hypocrite isn't it?

If you are one who wants to live by guilty until proven innocent, then please move to a country that has such values. Don't pollute America with such nonsense.
You can get off your high horse; hypocrisy is not subject to either criminal or civil action, so your hysterical rant about due process is pointless.

I'm still waiting for an explaination as to why someone who actively condemned the excesses of punitive litigation is not hypocritical for then engaging in that same activity (suing for damages and punitive awards) when opportunity arrises.

Don't sweat it; his hypocrisy doesn't refute his argument (an argument I agree with, btw), it just reveals his lack of character.

[BradLohaus]

Once a lawyer, always a lawyer.

Do you know why there are no lawyers in Heaven?

Because nothing bad ever happens there.

[boutons_]

"we don't know all the details."

But your ideological knee jerks this-a-way: "Seems like to me that certain safety laws have been lax there!"

Seem to me like your ideology forces you to defend an ultra-conservative by selecting the seemingly unknowns to meet your ideology.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol @ our resident tort reformers/clue catchers.

[whottt]

Shit...I guess he won't get elected now.


What's next...criminals calling the cops for help?

[Wild Cobra]

It is interesting that Judge Bork would rail so publicly against the imposition of punitive damages (or at least the Congressional or even constitutional limitations on such damages) yet is willing to take advantage of the existence, for his own benefit, of the very laws that he is so willing to decry in his writings.

Corect me if I’m wrong, but the article said “Bork didn't ask for a specific amount of punitive damages in his lawsuit.” That means any awarded “punitive” damages would be added to his $1 milliom requested is awarded. Now his bills are not listed, but likely a few hundred thousand. I’ll bet the Million includes pain and suffering.


I suppose that if Judge Bork was so steadfastly against the availability of punitive damages and a true-believer concerning the supposedly deleterious effect that such awards have on merchants and premises owners, one might expect that he would resist the opportunity to put a premises owner to that penalty and settle for obtaining only an award for his actual damages -- his medical expenses, his pain and suffering, and any psychic injuries that he claims to have suffered. His refusal to do that, it might be argued, smacks either of opportunism or hypocrisy.
Again, the article clearly states no requested amount for punitive damages. Did you pass English in school? It also states his opinion as "In a June 2002 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Bork suggested there might be instances where punitive damage awards are excessive."

Please explain how excessive means what is implied here in the hypocryasy aspect of the thread.


Otherwise, his lawsuit is a tacit admission that there are at least instances in which punitive damages are acceptable in our civil justice system. I don't have any particular quarrel with that argument, but it does seem surprising in this case, given Judge Bork's earlier writings. And it does seem to cut against some rather fundamental tort reform arguments.

Punitive damages do have a time and place. Personally, I am one that believes punitive damages should go the justice system, not the lawyers and individual.

You can get off your high horse; hypocrisy is not subject to either criminal or civil action, so your hysterical rant about due process is pointless.
What the hell are you talking about? You completely lost me.

I'm still waiting for an explaination as to why someone who actively condemned the excesses of punitive litigation is not hypocritical for then engaging in that same activity (suing for damages and punitive awards) when opportunity arrises.
My God… You are a fucking idiot. He did not ask for punitive damages. Did you read the article?

Don't sweat it; his hypocrisy doesn't refute his argument (an argument I agree with, btw), it just reveals his lack of character.
I see a complete lack of character in you! Get the facts strait please.

"we don't know all the details."

But your ideological knee jerks this-a-way: "Seems like to me that certain safety laws have been lax there!"

Seem to me like your ideology forces you to defend an ultra-conservative by selecting the seemingly unknowns to meet your ideology.
I only defended the aspect that we don’t know all the facts and shouldn’t jump to conclusions. It does seem to me that Bork is out of line in asking for the million. I am also surprised that a law school would be so stupid in seeing such an obvious potential for litigation. I acknowledging that there might be circumstances that do qualify the action he is taking. I won’t pretend to know all the OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/) regulations, but I think hand rails are one of them that is required for steps. I am against most regulations, but some are proper. As a conservative, I believe in the “Time, Place, and Manner” approach to rules and regulations.

[boutons_]

"an obvious potential for litigation."

obvious? we've heard only the ambulance chaser's $$self-$$serving opinion of the setup, but that's enough "facts" for you.

Nobody forced the decrepit old fart up those stairs. Does this ultra-conservative radical not accept ANY personal responsibility for his own spastic fuck-up?

I thought ultra-conservatives were big on personal responsibility, as in "I got mine, and I'll fuck you up to keep you from getting yours", and "blacks and other minorities are poor, dumb, uneducated, addicted, under-aged pregnant, etc because they have no personal responsibility".

Or are ultra-conservatives just like all of hypocritical, childish America, all for total freedom but with NO responsibility?

Just in case some kid doesn't know who Bork is, he's the guy in Nixon's DoJ who agreed to fire the Watergate special prosecutor to protect the disgraced Repug Nixon when DoJ people above refused. 20 years ago, Bork later lost an extremely bitter SCOTUS nomination that the "all-pissed off, all the time" ultra-conservative/Repugs are still pissed off about. I'm sure Repug fat cats will donate millions to Bork ambulance chaser's bills and fight this all the way to the SC.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Bork2.jpg

[Yonivore]

It is interesting that Judge Bork would rail so publicly against the imposition of punitive damages (or at least the Congressional or even constitutional limitations on such damages) yet is willing to take advantage of the existence, for his own benefit, of the very laws that he is so willing to decry in his writings.


In a June 2002 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Bork suggested there might be instances where punitive damage awards are excessive.
Notice he didn't say unwarranted. Also notice he didn't "rail" but suggested, in a Harvard Journal of Law article.

For comparison, Al Gore rails about global war...global climate change.


In a 1995 opinion piece published in the Washington Times, Bork and Theodore Olson, who later became a top Justice Department official, criticized what they called the "expensive, capricious and unpredictable'' civil justice system in the U.S.
Again, notice the absence of any expression that damages (punitive or otherwise) are unwarranted.

It would only be hypocritical if Bork had sought excessive punitive damages. He didn't.

And, it would only be ironic if, because of the Supreme Court decision cited at the end of the article, he received "excessive" punitive damages and said "excessive" punitive damages were set aside as being "excessive." In the absence of his request for "excessive" punitive damages -- or, any punitive damages at all -- the irony does, and will fail, to materialize.

God, you people are such simpletons sometimes.

[Yonivore]

Don't take the bait, Yoni.

It's suicide.
Don't worry, I have peepee on ignore, boutons too. And, I'd have SpunkDumper on ignore but, he's a fucking mod, if you can believe that, and they won't let you put them on ignore.

Just had to stop and point out his stupidity for a moment.

[FromWayDowntown]

Notice he didn't say unwarranted. Also notice he didn't "rail" but suggested, in a Harvard Journal of Law article.

You must not have ever read anything that Judge Bork has written. He frequently rails in his academic writings, which would include publications such as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. But if you don't like "rail," how about "advocated?" Does that better fit your semantic needs?


Again, notice the absence of any expression that damages (punitive or otherwise) are unwarranted.

It would only be hypocritical if Bork had sought excessive punitive damages. He didn't.

It would be asinine to argue that actual damages ("or otherwise," I suppose) could ever be unwarranted. The notion of tort is intended to compensate victims for the wrongdoings of others by providing a means to recover actual damages. Legislatures have decided that there are laudable public policy goals to be attained by requiring certain tortfeasors to pay additional penalties for their wrongdoing -- particularly where the tortfeasor was grossly negligent or acted with malice in undertaking its tortious conduct or misfeasance.

In this case, Judge Bork didn't request any sum of punitive damages -- and frequently, litigants don't ask for any such sums in specific denominations. Instead, like most other litigants, Judge Bork's pleadings leave to the jury the option to decide how extensive his punitive damages, if any, might be. Accordingly, the jury could award him no punitive damages or it could award him the very excessive punitive damages that Judge Bork has so actively advocated against. Again, it seems to me that if Judge Bork thinks that punitive damages are anathema to our civil justice system and that they are somehow a bane to business and commerce, the right-minded solution would be to plead for his actual damages only. Of course, Judge Bork didn't do that -- choosing instead to play "jury lottery" like the very plaintiffs that his writings decry.


And, it would only be ironic if, because of the Supreme Court decision cited at the end of the article, he received "excessive" punitive damages and said "excessive" punitive damages were set aside as being "excessive." In the absence of his request for "excessive" punitive damages -- or, any punitive damages at all -- the irony does, and will fail, to materialize.

But he did request punitive damages and that, you see, is the rub. It's not as if he was ever going to plead that a jury award him excessive punitive damages. Instead, apparently, he simply said (paraphrasing) "I believe that I am entitled to punitive damages and I leave it to the whim of the jury to determine what the extent of such damages should be." Fortunately, for the sake of ensuring that his original argument is fulfilled to some degree, the Supreme Court has already said that there are certain thresholds beyond which punitive damages awards are presumptively unconstitutional.


God, you people are such simpletons sometimes.

Indeed. Asking for consistency out of those who advance an agenda that, if fulfilled to its logical end, would circumscribe limits upon compensation available to tort victims no matter how egregious the tortfeasor's conduct is really such a simplisitc idea.

[ggoose25]

As ususal, FWD pwns

[xrayzebra]

I just wonder, did he ask the University to pay his medical bills
and they refused. I am not at all familiar with this incident.

[FromWayDowntown]

The story will come full circle when General Olsen handles the appeal and has to defend the exemplary damages awarded to Judge Bork.

[Yonivore]

You must not have ever read anything that Judge Bork has written. He frequently rails in his academic writings, which would include publications such as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. But if you don't like "rail," how about "advocated?" Does that better fit your semantic needs?
Nope. Because the article doesn't characterize his opposition to excessive punitive damages as "railing," you did. Can we stick to the case and circumstances at hand?


It would be asinine to argue that actual damages ("or otherwise," I suppose) could ever be unwarranted. The notion of tort is intended to compensate victims for the wrongdoings of others by providing a means to recover actual damages. Legislatures have decided that there are laudable public policy goals to be attained by requiring certain tortfeasors to pay additional penalties for their wrongdoing -- particularly where the tortfeasor was grossly negligent or acted with malice in undertaking its tortious conduct or misfeasance.

In this case, Judge Bork didn't request any sum of punitive damages -- and frequently, litigants don't ask for any such sums in specific denominations. Instead, like most other litigants, Judge Bork's pleadings leave to the jury the option to decide how extensive his punitive damages, if any, might be. Accordingly, the jury could award him no punitive damages or it could award him the very excessive punitive damages that Judge Bork has so actively advocated against. Again, it seems to me that if Judge Bork thinks that punitive damages are anathema to our civil justice system and that they are somehow a bane to business and commerce, the right-minded solution would be to plead for his actual damages only. Of course, Judge Bork didn't do that -- choosing instead to play "jury lottery" like the very plaintiffs that his writings decry.
Again, nothing in the article indicates Judge Bork is opposed to punitive damages, as you suggest. And, nothing I've seen, read, or heard -- except from you, indicates Bork believes punitive damages are "anathema" to our civil justice system. Only that he is opposed to excessive punitive damages. There's a whole lot of presumption in your characterization. Not very lawyerly, if you ask me.


But he did request punitive damages and that, you see, is the rub. It's not as if he was ever going to plead that a jury award him excessive punitive damages. Instead, apparently, he simply said (paraphrasing) "I believe that I am entitled to punitive damages and I leave it to the whim of the jury to determine what the extent of such damages should be."
From where is that paraphrased? And, again, why is seeking punitive damages or -- if you prefer -- not precluding them up front, necessarily hypocritical in this case. Judge Bork's opposition seems to be directed at excessive punitive damages -- not punitive damages in general.

I would agree that if a jury awards excessive punitive damages and Judge Bork accepts that, it would be hypocritical but, we're no where near that stage in this suit. Are we?


Fortunately, for the sake of ensuring that his original argument is fulfilled to some degree, the Supreme Court has already said that there are certain thresholds beyond which punitive damages awards are presumptively unconstitutional.
So, there's little likelihood anything approaching hypocrisy will occur in this case, then. Right?


Indeed. Asking for consistency out of those who advance an agenda that, if fulfilled to its logical end, would circumscribe limits upon compensation available to tort victims no matter how egregious the tortfeasor's conduct is really such a simplisitc idea.
Being opposed to excessive punitive damages while being awarded reasonable punitive damages is not inconsistent.

The whole of the hypocrisy argument rests in a belief that by opposing excessive punitive damages Judge Bork is opposed to any punitive damages at all. I don't get that from Judge Bork's writings and, anyone who does, is a simpleton.

You should get your money back on that legal education. You are trying to become a lawyer, right?

[Yonivore]

The story will come full circle when General Olsen handles the appeal and has to defend the exemplary damages awarded to Judge Bork.
Exemplary damages? What are those?


ex·em·pla·ry
adj.
1. Worthy of imitation; commendable: exemplary behavior.
2. Serving as a model.
3. Serving as an illustration; typical.
4. Serving as a warning; admonitory
Why would anyone have to defend exemplary damages?

If you're trying to imply excessive damages well, once again, you're being presumptive and are way out in front of Judge Bork, the Judge, and the jury in this case.

For all you know, the damages awarded could be, well, exemplary.

[SA210]

:lol at Yoni trying to defend Bork as not being a hyopocrite.

[FromWayDowntown]

Exemplary damages? What are those?

Punitive damages -- stated more specifically, since not all damages for gross negligence are considered punitive in nature. Since you're so big on wordsmithing these days, the difference should be rather simple to see. Exemplary damages provide an example to others (as well as the tortfeasor) to avoid particular sorts of conduct or nonfeasance. They are both punitive and exemplary.


Why would anyone have to defend exemplary damages?

Because exemplary damages are punitive damages.



Again, nothing in the article indicates Judge Bork is opposed to punitive damages, as you suggest. And, nothing I've seen, read, or heard -- except from you, indicates Bork believes punitive damages are "anathema" to our civil justice system. Only that he is opposed to excessive punitive damages. There's a whole lot of presumption in your characterization. Not very lawyerly, if you ask me.

So then the point is that Judge Bork is willing to draw perfectly arbitrary lines and you're okay with that?

It would seem to me that if Judge Bork was truly concerned with the notion that businesses are impaired by excessive awards of exemplary damages, a solution consistent with that concern would be a personal commitment to avoiding attempts to recover such damages. Were I making academic arguments seeking to limit the recovery of exemplary damages, I would have a difficult time squaring that argument with my own effort to recover exemplary damages in a personal injury suit. Of course, I disagree with Judge Bork in principle -- I think Legislatures and Courts have undertaken to impose more than sufficient curbs on awards of exemplary damages; I also think that there are times when huge exemplary damage awards are defensible. In any event, it does seem to me that it's rather difficult to express concern for the claimed negative effect that exemplary damage awards have on business while at the same time seeking to recover those very awards for oneself. Perhaps you don't see that as inconsistent.


From where is that paraphrased?

From any standard pleading seeking exemplary damages.


And, again, why is seeking punitive damages or -- if you prefer -- not precluding them up front, necessarily hypocritical in this case. Judge Bork's opposition seems to be directed at excessive punitive damages -- not punitive damages in general.

I find it hypocritical because Judge Bork's position -- apparently -- is that there is some level of exemplary damages that is essentially just an acceptable cost of doing business, but he and his allies should be in a position to determine at what level the effect becomes too harmful. Again, if his concern is protecting businesses and premises owners, then isn't it contrary to his own expressed concern to demand that those he wishes to protect pay the very damages that he finds so problematic?


Being opposed to excessive punitive damages while being awarded reasonable punitive damages is not inconsistent.

It is if your argument is one aimed at protecting businesses, I think. If you want to protect businesses from some harm created by exemplary damages, then one way to further that interest is to resist the opportunity to seek exemplary damages. Otherwise, again, its a matter of arbitrary line drawing as to what is or is not excessive.


The whole of the hypocrisy argument rests in a belief that by opposing excessive punitive damages Judge Bork is opposed to any punitive damages at all.

Actually, the whole of the argument rests on the fact that Judge Bork cites particular policy justifications for advancing his contentions but then conveniently ignores his own policy justifications when it suits him personally.


You should get your money back on that legal education. You are trying to become a lawyer, right?

Ad hominem, eh? That's a suprising turn, coming from you.

[Yonivore]

Actually, the whole of the argument rests on the fact that Judge Bork cites particular policy justifications for advancing his contentions but then conveniently ignores his own policy justifications when it suits him personally.
I disagree with this characterization. Nothing in Judge Bork's opinions say he is opposed to punitive damages and therefore, the argument of hypocrisy based on the possibility of him receiving same are bogus.

It's only hypocritical for him to win excessive punitive damages and not refuse them. And, while the term excessive is subjective, I'm pretty sure a careful study of his writings would reveal what he believes to be excessive.

In any case, since no award has been made, cries of hypocrisy are premature, at best.


Ad hominem, eh? That's a suprising turn, coming from you.
My apologies.

I do think you're being willfully ignorant of the argument though. Equating a disdain for the obscene excesses in jury awards -- as can be seen in certain cases over recent decades -- with a belief all punitive awards are unwarranted is, you should admit, an unwarranted characterization.

[FromWayDowntown]

I do think you're being willfully ignorant of the argument though. Equating a disdain for the obscene excesses in jury awards -- as can be seen in certain cases over recent decades -- with a belief all punitive awards are unwarranted is, you should admit, an unwarranted characterization.

I'd obviously disagree with you on this point.

I understand arguments expressing concerns for excessive exemplary damages. But I don't find it to be an intellectually honest position for one to claim to be an advocate for merchants and premises owners by disdaining exemplary damages while at the same time seeking exemplary damages against the very people he's advocating for.

More to the point, I find Judge Bork's exemplary damages pleading in this case to be a particularly egregious example of hypocrisy because there is nothing about his case that makes a strong argument for obtaining exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are frequently justified where a defendant has undertaken a course of conduct that threatens the safety of the public at large. The policy justifications for such awards are that if the tortfeasor doesn't face a significant exemplary penalty, it will continue with its course of conduct. But there's nothing about this case that suggests to me that the conduct of the Yale Club threatens the public or even a significant number of those who use the Yale Club's facilities.

When an award of exemplary damages is based on conduct or nonfeasance concerning a particular party -- here, Judge Bork -- the justification for such an award frequently stems solely from some evidence that the tortfeasor's conduct was rooted in malice towards the injured party.

Here, Judge Bork's own pleadings -- at least on the basis of what has been reported -- claim that the Yale Club engaged in gross negligence, not in malice towards him. But since such alleged gross negligence isn't likely a threat to a large number of people, the generalized justifications for exemplary damages in this case would seem to be non-existent. As such, the claim for exemplary damages here would appear to be at odds with even the most basic policies that such damages are meant to serve. That's particularly unusual to me, given that the plaintiff is such a staunch advocate for limiting those awards.

As an aside, I think that popular reports of supposedly-excessive exemplary damages are frequently fueled by misinformation or misrepresentations concerning the basis for the awards. The McDonald's coffee burn case is a prime example of that. When there was such public hub-bub about that award, there was very little reporting concerning the nature of the victim's injuries or the fact that McDonald's had, institutionally, encountered numerous examples of good fortune as others suffered lesser injuries resulting from its too-hot coffee. The only way to encourage McDonald's to change its policy was to hit it with damages that were substantial -- the minimal costs of personal injury suits hadn't provided sufficient incentive. There are many other examples, but McDonald's coffee is probably the most frequently cited example in this argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni will never be able to remove FWD's foot from his ass.


My God… You are a fucking idiot. He did not ask for punitive damages. Did you read the article?


Bork is seeking more than $1 million in damages and punitive damages.

The complaint is online. He's asking for a million + punitive damages.

[Yonivore]

I'd obviously disagree with you on this point.

I understand arguments expressing concerns for excessive exemplary damages. But I don't find it to be an intellectually honest position for one to claim to be an advocate for merchants and premises owners by disdaining exemplary damages while at the same time seeking exemplary damages against the very people he's advocating for.
Once again, you dodge Judge Bork's expression of excessive awards -- not punitive awards in principle.

And, even if the term excessive is a matter of subjectivity, it would seem that you would have to consider Judge Bork's conception of what is excessive before claiming he has taken a hypocritical position in his own case.

Finally, before any hypocrisy could be revealed, he would have to be awarded -- and voluntarily retain -- such an excessive award.

You seem to be arguing that a person opposed to people driving 150 miles per hour on the freeway shouldn't be allowed to drive on the freeway, at posted speeds, without being hypocritical.


More to the point, I find Judge Bork's exemplary damages pleading in this case to be a particularly egregious example of hypocrisy because there is nothing about his case that makes a strong argument for obtaining exemplary damages.
You can read the complain online (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/borksuit-060607.pdf). I googled it earlier. The rationale for punitive damages is explained therein.

Your characterization of his case for punitive damages being without merit is as subjective as what are excessive damages.


Exemplary damages are frequently justified where a defendant has undertaken a course of conduct that threatens the safety of the public at large. The policy justifications for such awards are that if the tortfeasor doesn't face a significant exemplary penalty, it will continue with its course of conduct. But there's nothing about this case that suggests to me that the conduct of the Yale Club threatens the public or even a significant number of those who use the Yale Club's facilities.

When an award of exemplary damages is based on conduct or nonfeasance concerning a particular party -- here, Judge Bork -- the justification for such an award frequently stems solely from some evidence that the tortfeasor's conduct was rooted in malice towards the injured party.

Here, Judge Bork's own pleadings -- at least on the basis of what has been reported -- claim that the Yale Club engaged in gross negligence, not in malice towards him. But since such alleged gross negligence isn't likely a threat to a large number of people, the generalized justifications for exemplary damages in this case would seem to be non-existent. As such, the claim for exemplary damages here would appear to be at odds with even the most basic policies that such damages are meant to serve. That's particularly unusual to me, given that the plaintiff is such a staunch advocate for limiting those awards.
Maybe the lawsuit was brought after The Yale Club refused to accept responsibility for their negligence and were indifferent to Judge Bork's pain and suffering. Maybe they've failed to correct the defect. Who knows.

But, in any case, I don't understand why you're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that opposition to excessive awards (or favoring limiting awards) is different that not seeking such awards at all.

Using my earlier analogy, I can be in favor of speed limits and not want to outlaw driving all together, can't I?


As an aside, I think that popular reports of supposedly-excessive exemplary damages are frequently fueled by misinformation or misrepresentations concerning the basis for the awards. The McDonald's coffee burn case is a prime example of that. When there was such public hub-bub about that award, there was very little reporting concerning the nature of the victim's injuries or the fact that McDonald's had, institutionally, encountered numerous examples of good fortune as others suffered lesser injuries resulting from its too-hot coffee. The only way to encourage McDonald's to change its policy was to hit it with damages that were substantial -- the minimal costs of personal injury suits hadn't provided sufficient incentive. There are many other examples, but McDonald's coffee is probably the most frequently cited example in this argument.
That's bullshit - to use a non-legal term.

Did the woman not realize how hot their coffee was? Had she never bought it there before? What idiot places a disposable cup of hot coffee between their legs and attempts the extremely complex act of driving? There are laws against driving distracted -- to include talking on cell phones, reading, putting on make up, and -- yes -- consuming food or beverages.

Obviously, this person wasn't capable of doing one and the other at the same time.

McDonald's made their coffee to the likings of their customers. If you don't like or can't handle hot coffee, don't order it. Her purchase of the coffee was a purely voluntary act.

Product liability cases based on non-defects but, consumer stupidity, are exactly the types of cases Judge Bork is talking about.

[johnsmith]

Pussysucker



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Worst insult ever on this board.

You really are a child.

[PixelPusher]

((( Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

My God… You are a fucking idiot. He did not ask for punitive damages. Did you read the article? )))



((( Quote:
Originally Posted by The article that Wild Cobra did not read

Bork is seeking more than $1 million in damages and punitive damages.)))


The complaint is online. He's asking for a million + punitive damages.
I feel like a Cornerback who just missed out on an easy INT because the Free Safety was able to jump on it first.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[UV Ray]

Once again, you dodge Judge Bork's expression of excessive awards -- not punitive awards in principle.

And, even if the term excessive is a matter of subjectivity, it would seem that you would have to consider Judge Bork's conception of what is excessive before claiming he has taken a hypocritical position in his own case.

Finally, before any hypocrisy could be revealed, he would have to be awarded -- and voluntarily retain -- such an excessive award.

You seem to be arguing that a person opposed to people driving 150 miles per hour on the freeway shouldn't be allowed to drive on the freeway, at posted speeds, without being hypocritical.

Bork may be the definition of hypocrisy, but there is no proof in this thread. You kicked ass. Nice job.

[PixelPusher]

All of this talk of hypocrisy brought to mind another recent flap on this board about Al Gore's hypocrisy (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61068&page=1&pp=26&highlight=Hypocrisy+Gore), although to the surprise of absolutely no one, Yonivore was much less discerning over the nuances of what exactly constituted hypocrisy.



This has nothing to do with whether or not his movie is accurate and everything to do with the hypocrite increasing his own "carbon footprint" while pleading with others to reduce their for the sake of the world.

It's the very definition of hypocrite.

------

I talk about Gore's hypocrisy without even mentioning the merits of his "global climate change" nonsense and you, somehow, come to the conclusion one must agree with his underlying premise in order to call him a hypocrite for not practicing what he's preaching?

------

You can either bloviate about an issue or you can lead by example.

------

My impression of the whole Al Gore's mansion issue was that, in spite of the disingenuous nature of the hit piece, that is was at least bad form, if not outright hypocritical of him not to have some energy saving features. But, thanks to present day Yoni, I can now use those same sophis...er, arguments to refute past day Yoni:

Hypocrisy can not be attributed to Al Gore's energy consumption unless you can definitively prove that Al Gore believes his mansion's specific energy consumption to be a significant factor in increasing Global Warming. The further revelation that Al Gore purchased carbon credits for his mansion's carbon footprint heavily favors the case that Al Gore believes his energy consumption does not negatively affect Global Warming.

See? Gore's not a hypocrite. Bork's not a hypocrite. It's all good...


...unless you take into account one teeny, tiny little word that pops up in Webster's Dictionary definition of hypocrisy:
-----
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
------
Appearance.

Appearances can be decieving, but they do matter, especially if the promoter of ideas can, as Yonivore put it, "bloviate about an issue or lead by example."

oh well...back to the drawing board.

[UV Ray]

All of this talk of hypocrisy brought to mind another recent flap on this board about Al Gore's hypocrisy (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61068&page=1&pp=26&highlight=Hypocrisy+Gore),
Hypocrisy can not be attributed to Al Gore's energy consumption unless you can definitively prove that Al Gore believes his mansion's specific energy consumption to be a significant factor in increasing Global Warming. The further revelation that Al Gore purchased carbon credits for his mansion's carbon footprint heavily favors the case that Al Gore believes his energy consumption does not negatively affect Global Warming.

See? Gore's not a hypocrite. Bork's not a hypocrite. It's all good...


...unless you take into account one teeny, tiny little word that pops up in Webster's Dictionary definition of hypocrisy:


1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy[/I]
------
Appearance.

Appearances can be decieving, but they do matter, especially if the promoter of ideas can, as Yonivore put it, "bloviate about an issue or lead by example."

oh well...back to the drawing board.


Sorry but the fact that Gore purchased carbon credits overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes his energy consumption negatively affects global warming. The only question left would be how long he continued to waste resources after his environmental epiphany.

[PixelPusher]

Sorry but the fact that Gore purchased carbon credits overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes his energy consumption negatively affects global warming. The only question left would be how long he continued to waste resources after his environmental epiphany.
:lol That's what I get for not putting forth an "honest" attempt at a bullshit defense of Gore's hypocrisy instead of a half-hearted, ironic one.

Of course, that would mean the fact that Bork frequently railed against the excesses of punitive damages overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes punitive damages are excessive. The only question left would be how long he will pursue punitive damages before receiving the epiphany that this principle would also apply to him.

"...the false assumption of an appearance of virtue..."

"You can either bloviate about an issue or you can lead by example."

[UV Ray]

:lol That's what I get for not putting forth an "honest" attempt at a bullshit defense of Gore's hypocrisy instead of a half-hearted, ironic one.

Of course, that would mean the fact that Bork frequently railed against the excesses of punitive damages overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes punitive damages are excessive. The only question left would be how long he will pursue punitive damages before receiving the epiphany that this principle would also apply to him.

"...the false assumption of an appearance of virtue..."

"You can either bloviate about an issue or you can lead by example."

But you're assuming that Bork assumed that all punitive damages are excessive.