|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 02:15 PM EST |
Briefly put, while the form of your argument is correct,
what you're actually doing is reasoning backwards. What
you're doing is the old, "For every wrong, there must be a
remedy" type of argument. In short, *you* think something
bad happened, therefore you think the result is bad,
therefore you think the result you want is compelled by law.
Think of this- imagine a friend of yours gets hurt by a
driver for a company. 366 days later, she files suit against
the company (the driver is judgment-proof). The court
dismisses the action because the statute of limitations in
that case was one year (365 days) AND (in dicta) because the
driver was an independent contractor, so the company wasn't
liable for his actions. Now, this might not seem "fair" to
you or your friend. But it's the way things work.
Same here. You don't think the verdict is fair. Which is
fine. Maybe there will be great legal reasons to overturn
the verdict as a matter of law. But it is really, really
hard to overturn a verdict based on jury misconduct or bias.
Not completely impossible, but super hard. And the evidence
that Samsung gave regarding the post-verdict statement
doesn't meet the standard- moreover, it's inadmissible.
I would not be surprised if they don't pursue this on
appeal, given that they have better grounds on which to
appeal, these are almost always loser issues, and its frames
their case in a bad light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
