Sentences with phrase «plaintiffs damages totaling»

Not exact matches

The ruling caps the total damages assessed to the company at $ 507.5 million, a fraction of the $ 5 billion a jury initially awarded the plaintiffs in 1994.

We further find that the total amount of damages which the Plaintiff, [Sienkowski], is entitled to recover, disregarding fault, is the sum of $ 207,600.

As such, the concern shifted to consider the total amount of money that the plaintiff would be receiving, and it is in light of that fact that the court felt it was right to limit the damages to their desired effect of deterrence.

Rather, they are paid out of the verdict amount that the jury finds for total damages to the plaintiff.

Total and general damages are not significantly higher for corporate plaintiffs than for human ones.

The goal of such a defense would be not to avoid a plaintiffs» verdict, but to keep damages to a minimum and steer clear of the fate that befell Jammie Thomas - Rasset in Minnesota, when a jury assessed damages against her of $ 80,000 per song, for a total of $ 1.92 million.

For purposes of this hypothetical, the trier of fact awards damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $ 25,000, and each party incurred a total of $ 50,000 in attorneys» fees and costs, with the losing party being responsible to pay the entire $ 125,000.

However, if the plaintiff is found to be 25 % liable, and the total damages equal $ 50,000, then they are only eligible for $ 37,500 in compensation.

In total, the plaintiff was awarded $ 50,000 in general damages, $ 25,000 in aggravated damages and $ 25,000 in punitive damages.

The judge then multiplies each parties» percentage of fault against the total damages and that is the amount they must pay, or the amount the plaintiff can not recover if found to be at fault.

Jurors awarded about $ 140 million in total compensatory damages and about $ 360 million in punitive damages, said Mark Lanier, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs.

For instance, if the jury or a judge finds that the plaintiff was 20 % negligent in the accident or incident out of which the injuries arose, and the total damages were $ 100,000, then the defendant would only have to pay the defendant $ 80,000.

The substantial success of the plaintiff is clearly demonstrated by the large amount of damages awarded, the finding by the jury that the defendant acted maliciously and the total injunctive relief being granted.»

[6] The plaintiff claims against the defendant under all heads of damages for his personal injuries, in the total sum of $ 739,664.

[97] The plaintiff has not made out a claim on the evidence for more than $ 40,000 non-pecuniary damages and $ 4,000 special costs, for a total of $ 44,000.

The insured plaintiff sought damages and punitive damages potentially totaling seven figures in connection with the handling of a claim by LTL's client in the aftermath of a landslide.

For example, if the court finds that the plaintiff suffered $ 100,000 in damages but was fifty percent at fault, then the court would order the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages based on half of the total damage award, or $ 50,000.

There is no law barring the plaintiff from receiving damages, and the court simply deducts the percentage of blame placed on the defendant from the total amount given to the injured person.

In reasons for judgement released today Mr. Justice Holmes awarded an injured Plaintiff a total of $ 8,500 in damages as a result of injuries sustained in a 2005 BC car accident that occurred in 100 Mile House.

The Plaintiff claimed more than $ 17 million in past and future medical damages, and more than $ 27 million in total compensatory damages.

Jurors awarded $ 24 million in total damages, determining the hotel was 15 percent liable and owed $ 3.6 million to plaintiff.

[1] After a thirteen day jury trial on a pedestrian motor vehicle accident case, the plaintiff was awarded damages totalling $ 481,000.

That decision awarded damages and costs totaling $ 141,000, plus an order for the defendant to destroy any video or images he may still have, never to share any intimate images of the plaintiff, and to not communicate with the plaintiff or her family.

Appreciating this, can a Plaintiff simply defeat a Defence application to put a case into Rule 68 by claiming he will seek more than $ 100,000 in total damages at trial?

In this case the Plaintiff sought total damages well in excess of this.

After 3 hours of deliberation, the jury found that the defendant was negligent and awarded the plaintiff economic damages totaling $ 298,577.67 and $ 900,000 in non-economic damages.

Information reported includes the type of case, types of plaintiffs and defendants, trial winners, amount of total damages awarded, amount of punitive damages awarded, and case processing time.

The award was $ 540,094 to the surviving spouse for economic damages and $ 160,000 to each of the five other plaintiffs, the surviving adult children, for non-economic damages, for a total award of $ 1,340,094.

This means the jury will determine the total amount of damages but reduce the recovery by the plaintiff's percentage of fault, if any.

The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $ 23,500 for general damages, rejecting all other claims including past and future loss of income, future care and special damages.

The plaintiffs brought an action against Dunkin' Donuts for the termination of their leases and franchise agreements together with damages totalling $ 16.4 million.

[2] The plaintiffs prevailed at trial in this medical malpractice case and recovered a judgment that requires the defendant to pay damages and interest calculated [2] to total $ 1,914,807.90.

The Plaintiff proceeded to trial where he was awarded total damages of $ 174,360.84.

Although the reason for this holding makes good and under - appreciated sense from a retributivist perspective — a person ought not be punished for conduct that has not been clearly proven to be the defendant's culpable misconduct, es - pecially if the defendant has various defenses that could be raised as against particular claimants — the new holding poses a substantial risk of reducing incentives to plaintiffs and their counsel because they can not pursue a jackpot of punitive damages based on «total harm.»

The plaintiff was ultimately awarded a total of $ 10,000 in damages.

Plaintiffs in the case are seeking damages from an alleged breach of contract for «return of principal, interest, attorneys» fees and other foreseeable damages from the total loss of this investment.»