Show of hands how many here were on the jury or heard/read the entire testimony?
The reason I ask is because it's very easy to jump to what are often erroneous conclusions regarding court cases because headlines are written to attract attention and make the article is read. The classic case is the "Florida woman who sued McDonald's over hot coffee". It sounds ridiculous until you learn a lot of the details. Then it makes a lot more sense. (and the final award was a lot less than what was originally reported.)
For example, if I were a lawyer (and I'm not) and I was suing, I would argue that the fact that CSX was AWARE that the film crew had attempted to obtain permission suggests the company should have been extra suspicious and been more likely to follow their own rules about reporting.
i.e. if I tell you multiple times I want to sleep in your living room and you say no, you should be a little less than surprised if suddenly you find me asleep in your living room. Yes, it's my fault for sleeping there. BUT the fact that I'm aware does change things.
That said, that's one possible line of attack. There might be others. Case law might also apply.
Generally cases like this are decided on a proportional basis, i.e, "Foo is 80% responsible, Bar 15% and Baz 5%". Total damages are $100 Million, so Foo will pay $80 million, Bar, $15M, and Baz $5M.
That said, yes, it's entirely possible that the plaintiffs simply did a good job of bamboozling the jury.
My guess, CSX will appeal and the award greatly reduced, but not completely eliminated.
But my guess is, it's a bit more complex and nuanced then we're reading in the newspapers and here.
The reason I ask is because it's very easy to jump to what are often erroneous conclusions regarding court cases because headlines are written to attract attention and make the article is read. The classic case is the "Florida woman who sued McDonald's over hot coffee". It sounds ridiculous until you learn a lot of the details. Then it makes a lot more sense. (and the final award was a lot less than what was originally reported.)
For example, if I were a lawyer (and I'm not) and I was suing, I would argue that the fact that CSX was AWARE that the film crew had attempted to obtain permission suggests the company should have been extra suspicious and been more likely to follow their own rules about reporting.
i.e. if I tell you multiple times I want to sleep in your living room and you say no, you should be a little less than surprised if suddenly you find me asleep in your living room. Yes, it's my fault for sleeping there. BUT the fact that I'm aware does change things.
That said, that's one possible line of attack. There might be others. Case law might also apply.
Generally cases like this are decided on a proportional basis, i.e, "Foo is 80% responsible, Bar 15% and Baz 5%". Total damages are $100 Million, so Foo will pay $80 million, Bar, $15M, and Baz $5M.
That said, yes, it's entirely possible that the plaintiffs simply did a good job of bamboozling the jury.
My guess, CSX will appeal and the award greatly reduced, but not completely eliminated.
But my guess is, it's a bit more complex and nuanced then we're reading in the newspapers and here.
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.