Factual Background of the Case

This case began with a man named Fred Phelps. In 1955 Phelps created the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas. One of the tenets taught by the church was that God is angry with the United States for its acceptance of homosexuality.

The church was particularly concerned with the treatment of homosexuals in the military. As a result, members frequently went to the funerals of soldiers and put on demonstrations. In 20 years, the church picketed at approximately 600 funerals.

Matthew Snyder was a Marine Lance Corporal that was killed in Iraq, while serving in the military. Matthew’s father, Albert, elected to have a funeral at a Catholic church in Westminster, Maryland. Westminster was Matthew’s hometown.

When Phelps and his congregation learned of the funeral, Phelps, 2 of his daughters, and 4 of his grandchildren traveled to Maryland with the intention of picketing. When they got there, they demonstrated outside of the Maryland State House, the U.S. Naval Academy, and on the public streets by Matthew’s funeral. They carried banners that read such things as:

• “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,”
• “America is Doomed,”
• “God Hates You,”
• “You’re Going to Hell,”
• “Priests Rape Boys,”
• “Thank God for IEDs,”
• “God Hates Fags,”
• “Pope in Hell,”
• “Don’t Pray for the USA,” and
• “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

Police were called in and informed Phelps and his band that they were required to stay on a plot of public land next to a public street that was approximately 1,000 feet away from the church. There were several buildings between the designated location and the church. The picketers complied with the police order to remain in that area.

When the funeral began, Phelps and his people began waving their signs, reciting Biblical quotes, and singing hymns. At all times, the group remained in the designated area and never became violent.

Later that night, Albert saw a news broadcast regarding Phelps and his protest, and, understandably, became upset.

Westboro’s website contained a forum that allowed parishioners to post comments. A few weeks after the funeral, one of Phelps’s followers posted a comment interspersed with Biblical citations, which denounced the Snyders.

Procedural Background

Albert filed suit against Phelps and Westboro, claiming tort claims of defamation, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

Westboro filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the defendants were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The trial court agreed with Westboro with respect to the claims of defamation and publicity given to private life, but allowed the remaining claims proceed to trial.

The jury awarded Albert $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. The court reduced the punitive award to $2.1 million.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals felt that the case should have been dismissed pursuant to the First Amendment.

The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

At the time of this decision, prior case law had interpreted the First Amendment to be a valid defense in tort cases only when the subject matter of the speech at issue was public in nature. The First Amendment did not protect someone from a tort claim that was private in nature.

The question before the Court in this case was whether the First Amendment protected Westboro from tort liability when protesting outside of the funerals of soldiers.

Court’s Analysis

The Court looked at the content of what was being said. It used as examples, the signs that Phelps and his followers used. None of the signs was directed at the Snyders specifically. They each dealt with broad matters regarding the U.S. and homosexuality.

The Court also pointed out that Phelps and his church had protested at a large number of other funerals, and always on the same subject. This also seemed to indicate to the Court that the subject matter was of public concern.

Finally, the Court noted that Phelps and his people were in a public location in compliance with the directives of the police.

The decision said that even though this speech may have been painful, it is protected by the Constitution.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the decision of the Fourth Circuit was upheld and the case was dismissed in favor of Phelps and Westboro.

Interstate 75 in Florida was the scene of a tragic series of accidents in January of this year. At the time of the incident, smoke from a brushfire mixed with fog and made it impossible to see anything on the road. Vehicles began to crash into each other with the low visibility. 11 people died during the incident and many more were injured.

Recently, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement issued a report analyzing the accident and its causes. While, investigators said that there was no ill-intent, police should have handled the situation differently.

One concern was that prior to the accident, the highway had been closed down because of a different accident and because of the fire. A Sheriff’s Deputy reopened the highway and the crash ensued. The report noted that the deputy had received no formal training on how to determine whether or not the road should have been opened.

There was also concern that the Highway Patrol was not adequately communicating with the forest service and did not check on weather forecasts regarding the smoke and fog.

The report concluded with a number of suggestions as to how future problems might be remedied. Beyond additional training to law enforcement, it suggested that there be electronic message boards installed in areas prone to high fog.

Huguely was a lacrosse player for the University of Virginia. In February of this year, he was convicted of the murder of Yeardley Love.

Love and Huguely had been dating. On May 3, 2010, Love’s roommate called 911 and reported that Love had overdosed on alcohol. Investigators arrived and noticed indications of physical abuse. Love died. Investigators believed that she had suffered brain stem injuries as a result of her head being violently whipped around. They also believed that she had survived for about 2 hours after sustaining the injuries.

Huguely, was eventually arrested for the crime. He admitted to “wrestling” with Love and to hitting her head against the wall during a dispute. He claimed that she was unconscious when he left.

Early this year, following a 2 week trial, Huguely was convicted of second degree murder and grand larceny. Jurors recommended that he serve 26 years in prison. His sentencing hearing has been set for August 30.

Armed with the guilty verdict, Love’s mother has now filed a civil suit against Huguely asserting a wrongful death claim. Her complaint indicates that she is seeking damages of $29,450 in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive damages, interest, and attorney fees.

Factual Background

In a bizarre turn of events, this case began when Helen Palsgraf went to a train station. A train, owned by the Long Island Railroad Co., began to pull away from the platform and tardy passengers raced to get on board.

One man, carrying a package, attempted to jump on to the moving train. A guard that was on the train attempted to pull the man onboard. At the same time, another guard tried to help the man by pushing him onto the train.

During this interchange, the man’s package, which was covered in newspaper, fell and hit the tracks. It turned out that it was full of fireworks. When the package hit the ground, it caused a large explosion.

The shock wave from the explosion shook the platform. Palsgraf was at the other end of it near some scales. The scales fell over and injured her.

Procedural Background

Palsgraf brought suit against the Long Island Railroad Co. She asserted that but for the railroad employee’s negligence, the accident would not have occurred and she would not have been injured.

The trial court held in favor of Ms. Palsgraf. On appeal, the appellate court agreed that the railroad should bear liability, however, it was a close call. The vote was 3 to 2 in favor of the plaintiff.

The case was appealed to New York’s highest appellate court, the New York Court of Appeals and the court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

The idea that a person could be held liable for his or her negligence was well established at the time of this opinion.

Generally, to establish a case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff, breached that duty, and that the breach caused harm to the plaintiff.

The unique question in this case centered on whether or not a defendant has a duty to an unforeseeable plaintiff.

Court’s Analysis

Like the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals had a very narrow majority. The Court ruled 4 to 3 in favor of the defendant.

Judge Cardozo wrote the opinion for the majority. His position was that duty should focus on foreseeability. If a particular consequence of an act was reasonably foreseeable, then that person should bear liability for negligence. If the consequence was not reasonably foreseeable, then the actor should not be held liable, even if the actor caused the consequence through a negligent act.

That was exactly what happened to Palsgraf. The railroad guards’ actions in pulling and pushing the man carrying fireworks caused the explosion that harmed Palsgraf. The guards may even have been negligent in pushing and pulling the man onto the train. But there was not sufficient foreseeability to create a duty. The pushing and pulling could not foreseeably have resulted in an explosion that would cause scales at the other end of the platform to fall. It simply wasn’t something they could have expected to happen from their actions. Because questions of duty can be determined by the court

In a famous dissenting opinion, Judge Andrews said that he thought the case should be decided on a question of proximate cause. Under his analysis, the court should find liability if a duty to anyone was breached. Thus there would have been liability to Palsgraf if the guards were liable to the man with the package.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Court found in favor of the defendants and accordingly dismissed the case.

Egan and Simmons went hunting in a rural area in northern Florida on a Saturday night. At around 7:30 p.m., Egan left Simmons at their tent, and went in pursuit of a wild hog.

At the same time, Simmons left the tent hoping to find some loose oranges that had fallen from nearby trees. As she moved through the brush, Egan thought that he heard the hog he was chasing and open fire with his .30 caliber firearm. He hit Simmons in both legs.

Simmons had to be airlifted to Halifax Health Medical Center where she underwent surgery. She was listed in serious condition.

After investigation, the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office said that they didn’t intend to pursue charges against Egan. Major Steve Clair from the Sheriff’s Office, said, “he saw a hog and thought he shot it and went to look for it. He heard her and thought it was a hog and just shot. He was very sympathetic that he’d shot his girlfriend. It was an accident. I think it was just a violation of one of the cardinal rules of hunting which is you never shoot what you don’t see.”

The stuntman was able to avoid hitting extras or other people on the road, but ultimately crashed into a crystal glass window of a local jewelry shop.  The shop was 330 years-old.

The owner of the shop, Mete Boybeyi, said, “it is very nice for the Grand Bazaar to be chosen as a location for shooting this kind of movie. But the bazaar’s administration . . . didn’t notify us the shooting would be like this.”

The owner explained that the bazaar is regulated by the Council of Monuments which places strict rules on any kinds of modifications to the buildings. His concern was that the crash would make it very difficult to cut through the Council’s bureaucracy and make necessary repairs. As long as the store went unrepaired, it would have to remain closed.

Boybeyi continued, “no one from the movie crew came to ask, ‘what are your losses?’” So he went to the local police station and filed a complaint.

Skyfall is set to release in October of this year.

Factual Background

Lieutenant Commander Horton Johnson worked as a helicopter pilot for the United States Coast Guard.

Early one morning, he was assigned to respond to a call for help from a boat lost near Hawaii. The weather was bad at the time and no one on the helicopter could see anything. As a result, Johnson requested help from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in utilizing radar services.

The helicopter crashed into the side of a mountain, and everyone on board died, including Johnson.

Procedural Background

Johnson’s wife obtained compensation for Johnson’s death pursuant to the Veterans’ Benefits Act. She also filed suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Her position was that the FAA’s negligence in directing the helicopter had negligently caused the death of her husband.

The government submitted a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that because Johnson had been killed during the ordinary course of his duty in the Coast Guard, his wife was not able to file a claim.

The trial court agreed, and entered an order dismissing the case. Johnson’s wife appealed the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the case, finding that although prior case law prohibited tort suits in situations where the negligence of a member of the military causes injury to another member of the military, a different situation existed when someone outside of the military was negligent.

The Eleventh Circuit noted that the Ninth Circuit was presented with a very similar case, but came to a different result. According to the court, the Ninth Circuit decision was “wrongly decided.”

The government then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

Several important rules of law existed at the time of this decision.

First was the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Under the doctrine, the federal government cannot be sued for the tortious acts of government employees unless the government authorizes the suit.

Second, was the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Federal Tort Claims Act is such an authorization. It allows private individuals to sue the federal government when the government engages in some kind of tortious conduct that injures the private person.

Finally, the Court was faced with a 1950 United States Supreme Court decision entitled, Feres v. United States. In that decision the Court consolidated three different cases in which members of the armed forces were injured by other military service members. Each of the cases relied on the Federal Tort Claims Act to sue the military. The Court ruled, however, that a suit by a service member for injuries sustained by another service member while on active duty could not form the basis of a claim under the Act.

Court’s Analysis

The unique question in this case revolved around whether or not a service member’s widow could bring a cause of action under the Act when the negligence was caused by someone outside of the military.

The Court pointed out that service members are entitled to a number of statutory benefits for injury or death, which Johnson’s widow was receiving.

The Court also noted that members of the military have a unique relationship with the government unlike that with any other member of the public that could bring suit under the Act.

The Court further noted that Congress had had ample opportunity to amend the law to authorize service members to bring suit against the government. But it had not.

Ultimately, the Court was unable to distinguish any meaningful difference between this situation and one in which the injury was caused by another service member.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and held in favor of the government.

At 1 in the morning, a 2001 Ford Excursion was traveling eastbound on Bearss Avenue in Tampa, Florida. The problem was that the driver was on the wrong side of the street and had the vehicle’s headlights off.

The driver went off the road, crashed into a tree, and then continued back to the street. It was then that he drove directly into a police car driven by Deputy Juan Lazu of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department.

The nearly head-on collision caused the police car to fly backwards approximately 45 feet. The car caught on fire and Lazu was trapped inside.

Unable to escape, Lazu immediately radioed for help. Other deputies arrived and managed to remove him from the car. With the timing of a suspenseful action movie, the police car exploded, just after Lazu escaped.

He was transported to Florida Hospital and treated for minor injuries.

The driver of the vehicle was intoxicated. He also had several previous arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol. After being treated for injuries at St. Joseph’s Hospital, he was promptly arrested.

The driver’s fiancée told the press that she and her children had been in the vehicle earlier that evening. Because he was driving erratically and yelling, “I’m going to kill you all,” she and her children jumped from the Excursion while it was still moving.

Punitive damages are damages awarded against a defendant to punish him or her for some reprehensible act. The hope is that if the damages are sufficiently high, they will make the defendant think twice before engaging in the same or similar behavior in the future.

Factual Background

In 1990, Doctor Ira Gore, Jr. went to a BMW dealer and purchased what he believed was a brand new BMW sports car. Gore spent $40,750.88 on the vehicle.

9 months later, he took the car to a detailer. His hope was to make the car look “snazzier than it normally would” have. After looking at the car, the detailer realized that the it had been repainted.

Furious, Gore filed suit against BMW. During the course of the proceedings, BMW revealed that it had a policy requiring employees to make an assessment any time a new vehicle was damaged. If the cost to repair the damage was less than 3 percent of the sale price, then the car was repaired and sold as new. Any time such a repair was made, BMW said nothing to the dealers. The dealers in turn, could not tell prospective buyers about the damage to their new vehicles.

In the case of Gore’s car, BMW caused damage to the vehicle in transit. Repairs cost $601.37. As that amount was approximately 1.5 percent of the retail price, it was fixed and no one said anything to the dealer or to Dr. Gore.

At trial, Gore was able to prove that BMW sold 983 damaged and repaired cars, representing that each was new. 14 of those occurred in Alabama.

Procedural History

At trial, Gore sought an award that would include $4 million in punitive damages. He reasoned that his repainted car was worth $4,000 less than it would have been, had the car been undamaged. He then proposed that BMW be forced to pay $4,000 for the approximately 1,000 damaged cars they had sold as new, thereby totaling $4 million.

BMW countered that it had no obligation to disclose minor damage to vehicles. Accordingly, it believed that it should not be punished to the tune of $4 million when it established a policy in good faith.

The jury agreed with Gore, and awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages, and $4 million in punitive damages.

After the jury verdict was issued, BMW filed a motion to set aside the punitive damage award. It presented evidence that its policies were in compliance with the laws of 25 states regarding automobile disclosures. Because its policy was lawful, reasoned BMW, it couldn’t be held liable for a punitive damages award.

The trial judge denied the motion, believing that the damages award was appropriate.

BMW appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. That court largely affirmed the verdict, with some variation. It reduced the punitive damages award to $2 million.

BMW then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Existing Law

The law that existed at the time of this opinion, and that was most relevant to its outcome, was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution.

Case law interpreting the Due Process Clause said, amongst other things, that a state could not impose a punishment on a tortfeasor that is “grossly excessive.”

Other case law at the time authorized punitive damages, but gave little guidance in what the constitutional limits were in imposing a punishment that was not “grossly excessive.”

The novel question in this case, therefore, was about where exactly those limits were.

Court’s Analysis

The Court focused on two major issues in its analysis of this case. The first was whether or not it was proper for the court to impose punitive damages with the intent of altering BMW’s behavior in other states. The Court said to do so would be to infringe on the sovereignty of other states. Because the damages award against BMW was based on its nationwide policy, not just on the events that took place in Alabama, the Court believed that the trial court had erred in its award.

Second, the Court established guidelines as to how a court should constitutionally impose a punitive damage award. The Court said that trial courts should look at (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct, (2) the ratio of actual harm to the damages award, and (3) the comparison of punitive damages in other cases for similar misconduct.

After analyzing these factors, the Court came to the conclusion that the punitive award in this case was grossly excessive.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for determination of appropriate damages.

At 3:06 in the morning, an unidentified man was driving a 2004 Chevy Avalanche traveling northbound on Ocoee Apopka Road in Ocoee, Florida, near the SR-249. There were 3 passengers in the truck, including 25-year-old Fabiel Ayola, 22-year-old Primo Luna, and a 26-year-old man from DeLand.

The driver crashed into a utility pole. He got the truck back on the road and continued northbound. He then pulled into a parking lot near a Master Muffler Brake Center and fled the scene.

Ayola and Luna called 911. When emergency personnel arrived, they promptly took the man from DeLand to the Florida Hospital Apopka to be treated for injuries. However, when he arrived at the hospital, he was pronounced dead.

Ayola and Luna suffered from minor injuries, but declined any medical attention.

The crash with the utility line also temporarily caused a power-outage in nearby homes.

Police have not yet released the name of the driver or the deceased passenger. They are currently seeking the driver and charges are pending.

Florida Highway Patrol trooper, Roy Basit, said of the driver, “Irresponsible. I’m not sure yet, but I believe alcohol was involved.”