Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
CNN settles in $250 million lawsuit from high school kid falsely accused by media/left because of his hat. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Bozeman Bruiser
- Start date
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It isn't? Loss of future earnings seems like it would be the single most important factor in this kid's lawsuit.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
gobirds is saying he will be identified by 80% or higher of the general public going forward, making his life hell.IvanKaramazov said:
No....no he did not. Someone said 80-90 percent would not recognize him and gobirds disagreed with that number. He is probably wrong, but you can bet more than 80 percent of potential employers will know who he is after a background check.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov said:
In terms of his damages, I would think the main path to a large verdict or settlement would be through punitive damages. Loss of future earnings is definitely a component of his damages, but that's pretty hard to prove in most cases, particularly I'd think with a young person like this. Essentially, what are his estimated lifetime earnings with and without this defendant's wrongful conduct? Its an extremely speculative thing to measure with any certainty, and most judges won't allow a vocational expert to testify to opinions based on speculation. Its possible his earnings are enhanced, at least in the short term with his social media platforms, speaking engagements and other opportunities this attention has generated.
As for the settlement, I think the biggest pressure comes from cost of defense and the potential damage to the network's image if their crappy internal practices are exposed. In this case it seems like none of these networks were really trying to report the story truthfully, and their back-peddling came too little too late. Is there enough for punitive damages - meaning, proving some form of "malice" or intentional harm? Maybe. I would not be shocked if they each pay/paid 7 figures to settle this case, although mid 6 figures is probably more likely.
Sunday Gravy
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
It is unlikely that CNN had anything of substance to do with the settlement amount. Their insurer settled it, and every insurance policy has what's called a "hammer clause" which means the insurer can settle the case for any amount it deems fit, and if you don't agree to the settlement you lose your coverage.
Executive boards of insurance companies determine settlement amounts, not the insureds. There are no messages to be inferred about CNN itself from the mere fact of a settlement.
I agree with CM that the settlement range was probably in the 6 figures.
Executive boards of insurance companies determine settlement amounts, not the insureds. There are no messages to be inferred about CNN itself from the mere fact of a settlement.
I agree with CM that the settlement range was probably in the 6 figures.
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like as good a place as any for this:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/jeff-zucker-cnn-resign-affair-cuomo-trump-1319698/
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/jeff-zucker-cnn-resign-affair-cuomo-trump-1319698/
FairWarning
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Right? 99.9% of the time they carry the water for and protect any and all Democrats and liberals.
I wonder if Zucker slept with someone's wife at RS.
Herb
Footballguy
Thanks for this, I was going to post it a couple days ago but couldn't find the Media Criticism thread. Important story, shows that Zucker is a real scuzzball and that CNN's reporting suffered as a result. Yet another good reason to not watch ANY American cable news, regardless of the personal opinions it may reinforce.
ETA: Here it is
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
There's no harm in sticking a dagger in the back of a dead guy. So why not? It positions them to claim a level of impartiality that they've manufactured here.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Sandmann's claims against all remaining defendants (NYT, CBS, ABC, Gannett and Rolling Stone) were dismissed on summary judgment yesterday. It appears the Court's ruling is mostly based on the 'fact v opinion' question - based on a quick review of the opinion.
https://casetext.com/case/sandmann-v-ny-times-co-1?jxs=edky
https://casetext.com/case/sandmann-v-ny-times-co-1?jxs=edky
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I took a look at the ECF out of curiosity and it looks like he sued 8 companies, settled with 3, lost on MSJ yesterday on the remaining 5.
Oral argument on the pending motions was set for yesterday, but the Court issued a notice last week that he would rule based on the briefs alone.
Oral argument on the pending motions was set for yesterday, but the Court issued a notice last week that he would rule based on the briefs alone.
