J.D.Hahaha this is completely NOT what you said. What you said was, the jury did not make the award, because it was the "judge's job" to "carry out" the "sentence". That is all completely wrong and made no sense, and you can't now revise history and move the goal posts.

FROM THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WEBSITE:'The decision of the jury doesn’t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision... In a civil suit, the judge may have the authority to increase or decrease the amount of damages awarded by the jury, or to make some other modifications before entering judgment.'

Tell me, how does the jury make the award if it doesn't get put on public record until the judge makes a decision? The jury doesn't award the plaintiff... the fucking judge does that. Sure, the judge can't reverse the ruling in favor of the of the opposite party, but they can sure as hell change the damages awarded as long as it sides with the jury. If the judge has the ability to change the damages awarded on a whim and they have the final say on the matter then I think it would be reasonable to assume that they are responsible for awarding the damages, 'carrying out the sentence' if you will, not the jury.

Craw_DaddyFROM THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WEBSITE:'The decision of the jury doesn’t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision... In a civil suit, the judge may have the authority to increase or decrease the amount of damages awarded by the jury, or to make some other modifications before entering judgment.'

Tell me, how does the jury make the award if it doesn't get put on public record until the judge makes a decision? The jury doesn't award the plaintiff... the fucking judge does that. Sure, the judge can't reverse the ruling in favor of the of the opposite party, but they can sure as hell change the damages awarded as long as it sides with the jury. If the judge has the ability to change the damages awarded on a whim and they have the final say on the matter then I think it would be reasonable to assume that they are responsible for awarding the damages, 'carrying out the sentence' if you will, not the jury.

You should probably learn what your saying before you say it. The suit was for whatever the pay out was, and the the people voted and agreed. A judges job is to uphold the law as written whether he agree's with it or not. The plaintiff brought a dollar amount to the suit and the jury sided with him, that's how our American legal system works. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

zzzskizzzYou should probably learn what your saying before you say it. The suit was for whatever the pay out was, and the the people voted and agreed. A judges job is to uphold the law as written whether he agree's with it or not. The plaintiff brought a dollar amount to the suit and the jury sided with him, that's how our American legal system works. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Actually, you're wrong.

From what I wrote on the prior page:

"That amount will definitely be rejected on appeal or just reduced considerably. There's no way in hell the Supreme Court will allow that amount to be awarded for punitive damages.”

And a link just for good measure....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-usa-tobacco-rjreynolds-idUSKBN0FP0TS20140720

yelselActually, you're wrong.

From what I wrote on the prior page:

"That amount will definitely be rejected on appeal or just reduced considerably. There's no way in hell the Supreme Court will allow that amount to be awarded for punitive damages.”

And a link just for good measure....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-usa-tobacco-rjreynolds-idUSKBN0FP0TS20140720

actually I'm right and the appeal hasn't happened yet. I'm not talking about what's in store for the future, I'm talking about that case that just happened. He seems to think the judge is solely responsible for the dollar amount, and who pays it.

zzzskizzzactually I'm right and the appeal hasn't happened yet. I'm not talking about what's in store for the future, I'm talking about that case that just happened. He seems to think the judge is solely responsible for the dollar amount, and who pays it.

actually, you're wrong. You stated that the plaintiff sued for an amount, and then the hurt decides if they get it or not...this is not the case with punitive damages. Punitive damages are aside from the amount sued for, they are a separate amount that is used as a deterrent in a specific industry. Basically, an amount that is determined to be large enough to have the appropriate effect on the behavior of both the company involved and other companies in the same industry. Punitive damages aren't something a plaintiff determines. As the article said, the plaintiff was awarded 16.9 million in her civil suit. The 23.6 billion is the punitive amount--separate from the 16.9 million.

Basically she was in the right place at the right time, and they used her case as an example.

Jury* not hurt. Sorry- mobile and autocorrect.