Vulgar voicemails force debt collector to pay $1.5 million

[SpidermanTuba]

$50,000 for mental anguish? Over some messages on a machine? Hmmmm.

$1.5m in punitive damages? Hmmmmm.

While I totally agree with the actual verdict, the sums are just ludicrous.

point well taken.

What's ludicrous about it? The fact that 1.5 mil is enough to actually hurt the corporation in question?

 

[George Costanza]

Eight calls. Yea, that must have been hell for him. What I find impressive is that anyone thinks this is reasonable.

You agree with the court's decision as fair and reasonable. You don't like the amount. Why?

You don't have to pay it, this corporation does and they ought to know better. They deserve to pay through the nose. The voice mails were not only vulgar, but racist and harassing.

It's not about who pays, it is about what is 'fair and reasonable'. The decision was, the amount is ludicrous. $1.5m for a few insulting calls - seriously? I find that offensive. People see this kind of shit as a money tree and it is not. Particularly when, but for his own actions, it would not have happened.

Presumably, the amount of punitive damages was set at a sum that would get the attention of the debt collection firm. As several others have noted so far, that is the purpose of punitive damages - to punish the offender (and here is the important part) in such a manner that it will realistically prevent future occurrences.

I don't know what the net worth of the debt collection company in this case was, but I would assume that punies in the amount imposed were proper. Suppose AT&T committed some horrible atrocity that called for punitive damages. What would you say - $10,000.00? Of course not. AT&T has that amount in the petty cash coffers of every one of thier offices nationwide, presumably. 45 million? Now we may be on the right track.

I trust you get it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

$50,000 for mental anguish? Over some messages on a machine? Hmmmm.

$1.5m in punitive damages? Hmmmmm.

While I totally agree with the actual verdict, the sums are just ludicrous.

point well taken.

What's ludicrous about it? The fact that 1.5 mil is enough to actually hurt the corporation in question?

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.


you're on my "Not too bright" list

 

[SpidermanTuba]

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.

That isn't what the law says. Isn't the law what should actually be applied?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.

That isn't what the law says. Isn't the law what should actually be applied?

 

[Dis]

Why are you all assuming this is the corporations standard policy? Perhaps this particular individual had a gripe against the company he worked for, and purposely set out to sabotage them. Why should the corporation be held responsible for the actions of an employee they likely hired in good faith? Why is the individual himself not being sued?

Now, far do you guys want to really twist shit?


What a load of bunk.

 

[Anguille]

Why are you all assuming this is the corporations standard policy? Perhaps this particular individual had a gripe against the company he worked for, and purposely set out to sabotage them. Why should the corporation be held responsible for the actions of an employee they likely hired in good faith? Why is the individual himself not being sued?

Now, far do you guys want to really twist shit?


What a load of bunk.

Assuming this wasn't this corporation's standard policy, they allowed him to do it. Several times, apparently. This judgment will teach them to better monitor their employees and to conform to legal and ethical standards of practice.

 

[Anguille]

My guess is that these tactics were standard policy, thus the heavy damages.

 

[Nik]

Why are you all assuming this is the corporations standard policy? Perhaps this particular individual had a gripe against the company he worked for, and purposely set out to sabotage them. Why should the corporation be held responsible for the actions of an employee they likely hired in good faith? Why is the individual himself not being sued?

Now, far do you guys want to really twist shit?


What a load of bunk.

Employers are responsible for the actions of their employees when in pursuit of the employers goals.

If the employee was just trying to sabotage them, the employer would have raised that defense in court and could have tried to prove the facts of it.

 

[Nik]

point well taken.

What's ludicrous about it? The fact that 1.5 mil is enough to actually hurt the corporation in question?

hurting the corp would be a fine in a criminal case, not a reward in a civil case.

you're on my "Not too bright" list

Why do you think they are called PUNITIVE damages? And people/corporations have damages assigned against them to "hurt" them all the time.

 

[Dis]

Why are you all assuming this is the corporations standard policy? Perhaps this particular individual had a gripe against the company he worked for, and purposely set out to sabotage them. Why should the corporation be held responsible for the actions of an employee they likely hired in good faith? Why is the individual himself not being sued?

Now, far do you guys want to really twist shit?


What a load of bunk.

Assuming this wasn't this corporation's standard policy, they allowed him to do it. Several times, apparently. This judgment will teach them to better monitor their employees and to conform to legal and ethical standards of practice.

Who would you like to appoint to stand over each and every one of almost what...4000 employees and monitor every single one of at least 4000 calls per day (assuming each employee only calls on one bill)? Or, do you trust your employees to do their jobs?

 

[Dis]

Interesting that those taking the side of the 1.5 million dollar verdict are also those that insist upon taking from those who work harder, and make more and giving to those who choose to sit on their asses and do nothing...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why are you all assuming this is the corporations standard policy?

No one is.

Perhaps this particular individual had a gripe against the company he worked for, and purposely set out to sabotage them.

It was more than one person.

Why should the corporation be held responsible for the actions of an employee they likely hired in good faith?

Because its what the law says.

Why is the individual himself not being sued?

The employer of the offending employees is free to sue them to attempt to recover their damages.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who would you like to appoint to stand over each and every one of almost what...4000 employees and monitor every single one of at least 4000 calls per day (assuming each employee only calls on one bill)? Or, do you trust your employees to do their jobs?

Sounds like an argument the defendant could have raised at trial if it would have helped them. Since this wasn't a one time thing and it was multiple employees, I, as a juror, would have trouble believing the employer took all possible precautions to prevent it without seeing ample evidence to the contrary.

But I wasn't a juror in this case. And neither were you. So neither of us are really as qualified to comment on it as the jury - which awarded 1.5 mil in punitive damages.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Interesting that those taking the side of the 1.5 million dollar verdict are also those that insist upon taking from those who work harder, and make more and giving to those who choose to sit on their asses and do nothing...

OK Mr. StrawmanRedHerring.

 

[boedicca]

Call me crazy, but I don't care if the debt was valid and he owed them $100,000. What they did would still be out of line. I guess Tubby feels differently.

You're surprised that Tubby finds incredibly rude behavior to be acceptable?

Ahem.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Call me crazy, but I don't care if the debt was valid and he owed them $100,000. What they did would still be out of line. I guess Tubby feels differently.

You're surprised that Tubby finds incredibly rude behavior to be acceptable?

Ahem.

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm all for the verdict, you guys are idiots.

 

[manifold]

Call me crazy, but I don't care if the debt was valid and he owed them $100,000. What they did would still be out of line. I guess Tubby feels differently.

You're surprised that Tubby finds incredibly rude behavior to be acceptable?

Ahem.

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm all for the verdict, you guys are idiots.

I'm talking about you making a big deal about the validity of the debt. You gave the impression that your support of the verdict was driven by the belief that the debt wasn't valid. Personally, I don't think that matters at all in this case.

 

[Nik]

Interesting that those taking the side of the 1.5 million dollar verdict are also those that insist upon taking from those who work harder, and make more and giving to those who choose to sit on their asses and do nothing...

Interesting that those taking the side of justifying the corporations wrongdoing are the same ones who want to throw the book at individuals who commit wrongdoing....

What is it about corporations that give them such latitude? Oh right...they have money...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm talking about you making a big deal about the validity of the debt.

Can you follow a conversation at all or are you just a brain dead moron? It was CaliGirl who made an issue of the validity of the debt, proclaiming that the plaintiff would not have been harassed if he hadn't owed money, and claimed it as fact that his own actions lead to the harassment. So I countered her ignorant blame the victim attitude by pointing out this guy may very well have not owed any money at all.

You gave the impression that your support of the verdict was driven by the belief that the debt wasn't valid.

I only gave that impression to ignorant douchebags who can't follow a thread.