Bloggers and blog-commenters might want to think very carefully before employing those epithets. Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla. obtained an $11 million default verdict in her defamation lawsuit against Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., who’d used the expressions in denouncing Scheff. (Laura Parker, “Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts”, USA Today, Oct. 11). David Lat writes, “Eleven million dollars? You can call us whatever you like for that kind of money. … Most wrongful-death awards that are smaller than that.” (Oct. 11).
3 Comments
Note that under a loser-pays regime, she would be entitled to her legal fees as well. Not sure how that works when the loser is indigent, though.
Tom: the defendant in this case ultimately defaulted, apparently at least in part because she couldn’t pay her attorney; under a loser pays regime, the defendant’s lawyer would have had an incentive to stick with the case, assuming the defendant’s position had merit.
As for your question, obviously indigent is indigent. The plaintiff can’t get blood from a stone.
This is really garden variety. They had a (sort of) business relationship. Bock felt she ha dbeen dissed. She made (prima facie) defamatory per-se comments about Scheff that she was not prepared (or able) to prove in Court.
The ridiculous part appears to be the amount of the verdict. What was that based upon?