Last June, a jury awarded Nancy Benoit's family $19.6 million in punitive damages, along with $125,000 in compensatory damages, but U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. reduced the $19.6 million to $250,000, citing Georgia's statutory cap on punitive damages. (See "TUOL" post 6/20/11.) As reported by the Daily Mail online edition (www.dailymail.co.uk), Associated Press and the ABA Journal Law News Now blog, counsel for Nancy Benoit's Estate argued the adult magazine "acted...with intent to harm" the plaintiff, an exception to the statutory cap, so the $19.6 million puntive damages award should be reinstated. Counsel for the defendant argued on First Amendment grounds that the matter was wrongly tried in the first instance because the photos of Nancy Benoit were newsworthy, involving a matter of public concern, a recognized defense to invasion of privacy claims.
Friday, January 27, 2012
UPDATE: Nancy Benoit Heirs Ask 11th Circ. to Reinstate $20m Judgment Against Hustler Magazine
Last June, a jury awarded Nancy Benoit's family $19.6 million in punitive damages, along with $125,000 in compensatory damages, but U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. reduced the $19.6 million to $250,000, citing Georgia's statutory cap on punitive damages. (See "TUOL" post 6/20/11.) As reported by the Daily Mail online edition (www.dailymail.co.uk), Associated Press and the ABA Journal Law News Now blog, counsel for Nancy Benoit's Estate argued the adult magazine "acted...with intent to harm" the plaintiff, an exception to the statutory cap, so the $19.6 million puntive damages award should be reinstated. Counsel for the defendant argued on First Amendment grounds that the matter was wrongly tried in the first instance because the photos of Nancy Benoit were newsworthy, involving a matter of public concern, a recognized defense to invasion of privacy claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting that the Benoit estate counsel claims "intent to harm" against a corporate entity. That charge seems inappropriate unless there was some personal relationship between the defendant and the individual(s) making the publication decision. Wasn't the magazine's intent more likely to have been to maximize circulation and profit, with harm being collateral damage? -- But perhaps I'm being too literal in interpreting "intent to harm."
ReplyDeleteThere is a right to publicity privacy claim--appropriating the victim's image without her consent. There was an issue about Mrs. Benoit allegedly requesting the nude modeling photos be destroyed or believing they were, if memory serves.
ReplyDelete