Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> reputation

Very probably the matter is not with reputation. What seems to be more plausible instead is:

-- the victims having had an angry mob risen against them (and of course in the context of having suffered a diremost loss);

-- the responsible having financially exploited the situation.




> the responsible having financially exploited the situation.

This has nothing to do with the lawsuit. It's not a defamation claim; it's not a damages claim. You'd have to make a claim for unjust enrichment.


You sound very sure of this, but I am less sure. Disgorgement is a remedy, in US law, for torts in general. Damages are especially constrained in defamation claims, because of the first amendment, but defamation is just one of five claims against Jones, all of which he was found guilty of --- intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and, most notably, violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices act.

I'm not saying I'm sure these numbers will hold up (punitive damages under CUTPA are uncapped, though!), but I think the story about how the jury could have reached these numbers is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be.

In particular:

(1) It's not just defamation.

(2) You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort.


> You do not in fact need to make a "claim for unjust enrichment" to recover profits earned through an intentional tort.

I would need a lot more than your assertion to be convinced of this. Here's Ward Farnsworth introducing his book, Restitution: Civil Liability for Unjust Enrichment:

> Restitution is the mirror image of tort law. You sue in tort to recover for losses that you have suffered. You bring a restitution claim to recover gains that another party has obtained. In some cases it makes no difference which claim you bring, because your losses and the other side's gains are the same. Or you might prefer a tort claim because your losses are bigger than the defendant's gains, as usually is true when you suffer damage in an accident. But sometimes going after the defendant's gains will allow a much bigger recovery, or is the plaintiff's only way to recover at all.

> Restitution is the great overlooked topic in American private law. In this country most students can't learn about it even if they want to; few schools teach the subject. Students only hear about restitution as the name of an occasional remedy in contract cases. But restitution is the name of a claim, not just a remedy. So lawyers often overlook restitution and sometimes try to use tort and contract to solve problems that restitution law would handle better. Missing or misunderstanding the right to go after a defendant's gains can be a very expensive oversight.

( https://reason.com/volokh/2014/10/27/restitution-law-interes... )

Here we see a brief mention of Jesse Ventura's novel (in 2014) legal strategy of including a claim for unjust enrichment in his defamation suit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

(From the piece: "The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000 for defamation, and $1,345,477.25 on the unjust enrichment theory.")

Why would he do that, if it were just part of how all torts are handled? What would be unusual about it? (And why would Ward Farnsworth introduce the subject by pointing out that "tort claims and restitution claims are opposite things"?)


I meant, in justification of the amount in the sanction (consistently with the concern of the parent poster).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: