Damages to credit: Is it worth the work?

As posted before, one common complaint of plaintiffs in wrongful termination cases is that the loss of the job and income caused them to run up charges, become late on installment payments and ultimately ruin the person's credit.

While the situation could clearly happen, in many situations the actual damage, if it were measurable, would be limited. Why?

Reason 1: The individuals that would be more likely to be affected and have to run up credit to the limit are most likely lower wage earners.

Individuals who are higher wage earners would be more likely to have the resources to draw on that would help them ride out the somewhat temporary effects of a employment termination.

Reason 2: The higher interest cost paid by the plaintiff would be limited both in time and most likely by the income level of the plaintiff.

As mentioned in reason 1, the person who is most likely to be effected is more likely to have a lower level of income which would limit the person's ability to get credit in the first place. Furthermore, the damages in most instances would be limited to the difference between the before employment termination and after employment termination interest. In addition, the damages could be expected to be limited over time because the person's credit score and access to credit would increase as the person acquires replacement employment.

For instance, a person with $10k in debt, who paid 10% per year on that debt before the termination would pay $1,000 per year in interest. If the same person after the employment termination was forced to pay 15% interest rate, then they would pay $1,500 per year, or $500 more per year.

Is the $500 per year damage for say 5 to 7 more years worth the effort of proving up the loss?

Your call....

Mississippi Supreme Court rules that expert evidence deserves its day in court

In Smith v. Clement, No. 2006-CA-00018-SCT (Miss. 10/04/07)., THe Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that courts must provide litigants with an opportunity to be heard before ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony – and in all but exceptional cases that requires courts to hold hearings with full briefing and argument.

This important ruling may make some attorneys think twice before expending the resources on a Daubert challenge.

In a nutshell, the court said that litigants should have an opportunity to be heard on the admissibility of expert testimony.

Hearings make sense, the court said, as the most cautious approach to complex evidentiary issues."Perhaps before Daubert, such a determination could be made without a hearing, but the continual evolution of science and the growing intricacies of litigation mandate that we take the trial court’s role as 'gatekeeper' seriously," the court explained. "A hearing is simply the best method of guarding the admission of expert testimony."

See IMS for more.