Professor Michael Krauss Demonstrates the Post Hoc Fallacy
It's surprising that a man as learned as Professor Michael Krauss would commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but he does so with his criticism of a punitive damages award against Ford.
"Ford Motor Co. had been found liable for $10.6 million in compensatory damages (of which $8.5 million was for "pain and suffering") to a paralyzed driver...
But Ford was spared a possibly huge punitive damages verdict because its lawyer was allowed to tell jurors about the carmaker's dire financial straits and mass layoffs.
The jury awarded only $42,500 in punitives despite the large compensatories award. Ford's lawyers were allowed, over plaintiff's objections, to enter evidence about the automaker's recent mass layoffs and losses. Ford reported a 2006 full-year net loss of $12.7 billion, and in January the automaker announced plans to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in North America and close 14 plants by 2012."
Source: PointofLaw.com | PointOfLaw Forum: NJ Verdict Demonstrates Absurdity of Punitives
Professor Krauss wrongly assumes that because jurors were told about Ford's financial problems, they awarded only $42,500 in punitive damages to the plaintiff. Neither Krauss nor the article he cites provides any evidence that jurors based the size of the punitive damages award upon Ford's financial woes. Isn't it entirely possible that the jurors in this case decided that Ford's misconduct wasn't severe enough to warrant an award of more than $42,500?
One may share Professor Krauss' opinion that punitive damages are "absurd," but one shouldn't base that opinion upon Krauss' fallacious reasoning.
Comments