Highest paid stripper evar!!

[SlowwHand]

strip searched for more than three hours.

Leisurely search.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
That's a ridiculous amount of money. How could any court think she'd been traumatised that much!

I reckon she's probably very dumb but has a smart friend who told her to sue.

The amount claimed is high enough to force a trial. They apparently didn't want to settle out of court where nobody would hear about it. How much the jury will award is another matter, and the award amounts are always appealed.

Like the hot-coffee-in-the-lap case that initially awarded $2.7M but was reduced to $480k we'll see a heart-stopping figure from the jury and she'll eventually get less than a million.

[Zkribbler]

I am befuddled by this award.

Although the article is not the clearest, it appears that $5 million of the $6.1 million award is punitive damages. It's conceivable that punitive damages MIGHT be awardable against the franchiee because the franchisee's assistant managers (along with her fiance) were the ones that strip searched the girl (while the finance sexually assaulted the employee).

But at most the McDonald's franchisor appears to have done was to fail to warn its franchees that these prank calls were being received. That's simple "oops" negligence and not the malicious-type conduct which is supposed to occur to get punitive damages.

Compare this conduct to the hot-coffee case, where the franchisor refused to let its franchisees turn down the temperature on their coffee even though customers were scalding themselves.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
That's simple "oops" negligence and not the malicious-type conduct which is supposed to occur to get punitive damages.

Actually they're awarded for such reckless disregard all the time; the sort of knowing or purposeful intent you'd call "malicious" is only necessary to make getting them a slam-dunk. The point of punitive damages is more about deterring others from similar negligence than simple retribution against the "baddies."

Further, I doubt that these will be reduced as Straybow predicts. Past USSC cases have found punitive-to-compensatory ratios in the ballpark of 4:1 to be well within constitutional limits, and the ratio in this case is only 5:1.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Leisurely search.

Thorough search.

[Straybow]

Compensatory damages may also be reduced substantially.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Straybow
Compensatory damages may also be reduced substantially.

Not likely; unlike punitive damages, a state's limitations on compensatory damages are provided for in statutes and/or procedural rules. I'm unable to find the specific provision for Kentucky, but the jury instructions from this case explicitly set the cap at $1 million. Surely the judge based that instruction on some black-letter law, meaning there wouldn't be an error on which to appeal.

[Straybow]

Doesn't mean it can't be appealed. The primary offenders (the fake cop, the rapist) in this case were not employees, and McD/franchisee could argue that they are only fractionally liable for damages.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
The article does a terrible job there. Is this correct:

Fake cop calls McDonalds and says, one of your employees is a thief, strip search her. Then make her perform oral sex on you? And the manager agreed and made her do it?

WTF?

Essentially correct, although the process was prolonged for quite a bit, such that the girl was progressively intimidated by the whole thing. I still find it hard to believe that the manager and manager's boyfriend were not in on it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
Doesn't mean it can't be appealed. The primary offenders (the fake cop, the rapist) in this case were not employees, and McD/franchisee could argue that they are only fractionally liable for damages.

They could argue that, but the Kentucky Revised Statutes require proportionate liability among tortfeasors, and punitive damages are assessed separately against each defendant.

Employers are liable for conduct of their employees (dual employment is an interesting issue, depending on the nature of the franchise agreement), so there's not much relief for McDonalds there.

Presumably the jury instructions were clear on these points and the jury made their damages awards on the basis of their finding of McDonalds' proportion of liability and the applicability of punitive damages to McDonalds' acts.



The flip side is more adverse publicity, and the duty to warn employees plus the conduct of the store manager, and the torts occuring during work hours on work premises make an appeal a little tougher. Mostly an appeal would be a settlement tactic to negotiate a lower payout amount.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Employers are liable for conduct of their employees (dual employment is an interesting issue, depending on the nature of the franchise agreement), so there's not much relief for McDonalds there.

It should be added that even the manager who conducted the strip-search received damages here, which makes it even more clear that the law put the onus squarely on McDonalds. It's hard to see how she's a victim here.