Large economic damage award in burn case

Jury Awards $24.2 Million to Boys Injured on Amtrak Tracks

A Philadelphia federal jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania yesterday awarded total damages of $24.2 million against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for electrical burn injuries suffered on August 10, 2002 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania by two 17-year-old boys, Jeffrey Klein and Brett Birdwell.

The evidence showed that the boys saw the train parked behind the store, that one of the cars had ladders on each corner and a catwalk around the top, and that the boys decided to climb up and see what the view was of the city. Unknown to the boys was the presence of a fully energized, 12,000 volt catenary electrical wire just six feet above the boxcars.

The jury awarded Klein $1.6 million for future lost earning capacity; $9 million for pain and suffering, scarring, humiliation, and loss of life’s pleasures; past and future medical expense and punitive damages against Amtrak and Norfolk Southern.

The plaintiff's attorney are: Jospeh Roda and Dianne Nast at http://www.rodanast.com/

Ensure that your economic expert's report will support your damages claim

We were recently contacted by a personal injury attorney who asked a question undoubtedly on many attorneys’ minds: “If you were to produce an economic damage report for my case, how do I know that your conclusions will be inline with the interests of my client?”

The short answer: You don’t. But by staying in communication with your expert and making a few simple requests, you should be able to predict if their report will support the claim of damages in your case.

First, discuss the basics of the case with the potential expert. Explain where you see the damages in your case and listen for any objections he or she may have to your logic. If the expert seems to agree with you idea that damages likely exist, ask if he or she would be willing to review minimal case documents prior to retaining him or her to confirm that you both agree there are damages in the case inline with your expectations. These documents may include the original petition and the plaintiff’s tax and benefits documents. Finally, if you choose to retain the expert, you may request that he or she stay in verbal communication with you as the damage analysis is being performed. Ask that you be contacted with initial damage estimates before the report is finalized. This should give you the final confirmation you need that the expert’s opinion will support your argument in the case.

Damages: Forget about your P’s and Q’s . . . Mind your commas!

As reported last week the New York Times, there was a surprising damages outcome in a dispute between Canada’s largest cable television provider, Rogers Communications of Toronto, and the phone company Bell Aliant. The suite was regarding the phone company’s attempt to cancel a contract governing Rogers Communications’ use of telephone poles. Rogers communications argued that five year pole contracts renew automatically for another five years unless given cancellation notice before the final year of the original contract.

The end of the dispute came down to a single sentence in the contract: “This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The regulator believed the second comma meant that the part of the sentence describing the one-year notice for cancellation applied to both the five-year term as well as its renewal. Therefore, the phone company was allowed to escape the contract after as little as one year and did not have to pay damages of 1 million Canadian dollars (88,000 USD).

Front pay awards could be huge in paper discrimination suit

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegramm (October 26, 2006) 18 fired workers recently sued the Dallas Morning News for age discrimination. According to the article, the suit, filed Tuesday at U.S. District Court in Dallas, alleges that The News had become a hostile environment for employees over 40, stereotyping them as unable to adapt to new technology or assume multiple job responsibilities.

The Star-Telegram reports that the former workers are seeking back and future wages and benefits, as well as civil penalties for violating the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. One plaintiff is also seeking $9,200 that the suit claims he was entitled to under the paper’s severance plan.

Plaintiffs' attorney Karen Shropshire of Dallas said that the case could take two years or more to work its way thru the courts.

Economic analysis: The economic damages, especially the front pay or future wages component, could potentially be large if the jury finds in favor of the workers. This is because jobs in the paper industry are relatively had to come by and larger paper publishers tend to pay better wages. In short the workers will more than likely have a relatively difficult time obtaining alternative employment and if they do it will probably be for less than they were previously making. This is one to watch

What are the economic damages?

The following is an interesting case in which our economists were asked to provide their expert opinions. We will follow up on how we responded in the coming days...

We were asked by a potential client in L.A. to see if we could help calculate economic damages in a case involving a retail buyer. The buyer was in the showroom of a vendor (i.e. customer/client) breast feeding her baby.

The vendor, her client, asked her to leave the main showroom. After a heated discussion, the vendor offered her the use of a conference room to breast feed. In time, the plaintiff lost the business of this vendor and, she feels, lost several other key accounts. She believes she was ultimately 'mommy tracked' at her job by her employer.

What are the economic damages?

New claim for hedonic damages?

On Tuesday, a federal judge in Columbus, Ohio delayed the execution of cult leader Jeffrey Lundgren on the basis that the lethal injection would cause the prisoner pain and suffering because he is overweight and diabetic. Similar lawsuits filed in Missouri, Delaware and New Jersey have led to the halting of other executions. Lundgren has joined four other inmates in a lawsuit that argues the way chemicals are administered in lethal injections makes is painful enough to be cruel and unusual punishment and in violation of the constitution.

Exciting new business valuation resource for attorneys

Working on a Daubert motion in a business valuaton or lost profits case and need to learn what are really generally accepted methodologies? Attorneys will want to check out the latest peer reviewed journal from Berkeley Eletronic Press, tilted:

The Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis (JBVELA),
http://www.bepress.com/jbvela. I aopl

The Journal aims to bridge the significant gap between attorneys, academic and practitioner communities, each issue of the journal by featuring three types of articles:

*scholarly studies that advance the field of business valuation or economic loss analysis;
* case studies in accounting, finance, litigation, and strategic management; and
* studies of recent legal rulings.

New study suggest that the Daubert bar may not be that high

A recent study by Seton Hall law professor, David Barnes, aptly subtitled "Mad Scientists in the courtroom", argues that although the Florida state courts have resisted imposing the Federal Daubert guidelines, their gatekeeping role concerning expert evidence is functionally the same as the federal guidelines. In fact, the authors argue that in some ways the Florida Frye-based expert evidence standard may impose a higher standard than Daubert.

Daubert Watch 10.04.06

Court excludes economist testimony for using wrong data

Champagne Metals vs. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc.

Date of Decision: 8/7/2006, Federal 04-6222 & 05-6139, 10th Circuit
Area of Law: Antitrust & Trade Reg.

Source: http://www.dauberttracker.com/


Plaintiff, Champagne Metals, an aluminum distributor, sued defendants Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., et al, other aluminum distributors in the industry. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed amongst themselves to exclude new competitors in the aluminum industry and violated federal and state antitrust laws.

The plaintiff proffered the testimony of an economic antitrust expert. The expert opined that the defendants' threat to shift their business away from a mill would amount to a credible threat because the defendants had sufficient market power in the upstream market. The trial court excluded the testimony of the economist on the ground that his analysis and conclusions were inexplicably based on the wrong data. According to the court there was not sufficient explantion in his report as to why the economist built his analysis on data from the downstream market instead of the upstream market for aluminum.

On appeal the appellate court held that the trial court's decision to exclude the economist's testimony was not arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Beauty and the labor market: Part II

Study finds that the 'beauty penalty' on an workers earnings can be harsh, according to a recently published Rice University study. Like numerous other economic studies of the labor market, this new experimental economics study suggests that people that are deemed to be attractive by their peers earn more. The interesting twist in this study however was people who were deemed to be attractive were tended to be penalized more harshly when expectations were not met.

The authors of the economic study, “Judging a Book by Its Cover: Beauty and Expectations in the Trust Game,” suggest that this type of stereotyping can lead to a new and different type of employment discrimination that can impact promotions and terminations and scapegoating and other kinds of behaviors that take place every day.