Get in touch
SOUTH JERSEY
PHILADELPHIA
FLORIDA

Free Consultation for Personal Injury and Civil Rights Matters 

$65,000,000 in Punitive Damage for Trump’s Defamation case! Why so much?

March 8, 2024

By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024

President Trump recently made the news regarding the large jury award against him in a civil lawsuit in the state of New York.  Whether you are pro or anti President Trump, everyone was taken aback by the $83.3 million verdict, especially considering $65 million of that was attributed to punitive damages.


Now before we discuss how the jury got to these numbers, we have to lay out the civil procedure and findings in the E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump cases. So, whether or not you and I agree with these findings, it does not matter. What matters is the findings of the jury and the jury instructions in this case. Understanding those items, will help us understand the verdict. We can debate whether the Court and the jury got things right or wrong later when these cases are appealed.President Trump recently made the news regarding the large jury award against him in a civil lawsuit in the state of New York. Whether you are pro or anti President Trump, everyone was taken aback by the $83.3 million verdict, especially considering $65 million of that was attributed to punitive damages. 


Here are the facts in these cases that we need to know before discussing the punitive damages:

  1. E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is the name of two related civil lawsuits. Both are related to Jean Carroll’s accusation that President Trump sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996.
  2. Judge Lewis Kaplan presided over both cases. 
  3. Ms. Carroll filed the first lawsuit in 2019. (EJC vs DJT 1) She sued President Trump for defamation because of the manner in which he denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations.
  4. Ms. Carroll filed the second lawsuit in 2022. (EJC vs DJT 2) She renewed her defamation claim and added a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act in New York.
  5. EJC vs DJT 2 went to trial in May 2023. The verdict in that case found:
  6. President Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Ms. Carroll
  7. $5 Million judgment for damages to be paid by President Trump to Ms. Carroll
  8. EJC vs. DJT 1 went to trial in September 2023. Judge Kaplan issued a partial summary judgment for Ms. Carrol and found Trump was liable for defaming Ms. Carrol based upon the verdict in EJC vs DJT 2 that President Trump liable. 
  9. In January 2024, the jury deliberated and awarded Ms. Carrol the following awards:
  10. $7.3 in emotional damages, 
  11. $11 million in reputation-related damages, and 
  12. $65 million in punitive damages.


To be fair, I like you, have so many more questions about these cases after hearing the facts. But let’s stay focused and not let our political opinions or the media circus that is a President Trump trial, keep us from answering the question: How the heck did this jury decide on $65 million dollars in punitive damages?!? To figure this out we need to understand what are punitive damages. 


In a nutshell, punitive damages are a special type of compensation awarded in a personal injury case that is in addition to actual damages. In this case, the actual damages would be the emotional damages and reputation-related damages of Ms. Carrol. Punitive damages are levied to punish the guilty party for harmful and malicious actions and to serve as a warning to potential future actors to avoid similar action. Let’s look at a famous old case that all lawyers read about in law school to see punitive damages in action. 


Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company was a personal injury tort case back in 1978. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile. To loosely summarize this case, Ford designed the Pinto with a gas tank in the rear of the car. Ford had reason to know that when the car sustained rear-end impact there was a chance the gas tank could ignite resulting in fire and death, which occurred with the Plaintiff’s family member. The Plaintiff established that Ford knew of this risk but decided to sell the car anyways because recalling and fixing this safety risk would be too costly. To punish Ford for this type of business practice, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $125 million in punitive damages in addition to their actual damages stemming from the death of the family member. 


But you may be asking, how do you establish that a guilty defendant is deserving of punitive damages? In the case of EJC vs. DJT 1, the state of New York issued New York Pattern Jury Instruction § 2:278 on punitive damages which defines when a defendant’s conduct is subject to punitive damages. It states: 


[a]n act is malicious when it is done deliberately with knowledge of the plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to interfere with those rights. An act is wanton and reckless when it demonstrates conscious indifference and utter disregard of its effect upon the health, safety and rights of others. 


Therefore, in order to award punitive damages in the EJC vs. DJT 1 case, the jury would have to find that President’s Trump’s defamation of Ms. Carrol was a malicious act or a wanton and reckless act with the intent or conscious indifference to harm the defendant. And that is exactly what the jury found. 


So it is clear that the jury found that President Trump should pay punitive damages, but again why so much?!? Well let’s look back what is the purpose of punitive damages. It is to punish the defendant and serve as a warning to potential future actors of the same conduct. In the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, at that time Ford was one of the most well-known and powerful companies in the United States. So, the question becomes, how severe of a penalty must Ford pay to learn their lesson and prevent similar actions in the future? Now what if Ford had been a very small car company that was struggling to stay in business? We would still have the same question, how severe of a penalty must Ford pay to learn their lesson and prevent similar actions in the future? In each scenario you probably would have come to a different answer.


In the case of EJC vs DJT 1, the jury faced the same question when determining the punitive damages award amount against President Trump. How severe of a penalty must President Trump pay to feel enough of a punishment so that he refrains from defaming people in the future? Whether you think it is fair or not, since President Trump is a billionaire, it is reasonable to determine that he would have to pay a drastically larger sum in punitive damages than most for it so serve as an actual deterrence. The jury opted for the sum of $65 million to be that magic number. It is safe to assume that most would consider that amount would deter even a billionaire from running the risk of committing defamation with malicious or wanton and reckless disregard in the future.




More News & Resources

December 5, 2024
By Terrell A. Ratliff, Esquire • 3 rd December, 2024
December 5, 2024
The Lento Law Group defends people accused of or charged with child abuse in Pennsylvania.
November 28, 2024
A 30-year-old woman in Oklahoma received a victim protection order (VPO) against her father after he beat her.
November 28, 2024
Bam Margera heads to rehab after a DUI arrest in Pennsylvania. Learn about DUI defense in Pennsylvania.
November 15, 2024
The House of Representatives has advanced an anti-hazing bill for Senate consideration that would increase hazing prevention.
By By Joseph Cannizzo, Esquire • 1 August, 2024 August 16, 2024
Surely no one would doubt that children are curious creatures, and as such, they often end up in places they don’t belong if they are not well looked after. The curiosity of a child’s mind knows no bounds, and while, as parents, we have come to expect simple “boo-boos” like a scrapped knee for example, sometimes curiosity can lead children into far more precarious situations. Obviously then, there are many situations where, from the worldview of an adult, while we see dangers that should best be avoided, a child may only see adventure – a new mystery waiting to be explored. While, of course, it is important that parents foster their children’s inquisitive minds, a parent’s first priority should surely always be to protect their children from serious bodily injury, or worse. Now that Summer is just around the corner, protecting our children is particularly important as swimming pools will start to be opened up and trampolines will be going back out in the yard. Fortunately, the law recognizes the tendency of children to view all the world as a playground, and imposes a special duty on owners of such things as swimming pools and trampolines to protect children from the hazard these things can represent. Like many states, New Jersey has adopted this principle of tort law, called the attractive nuisance doctrine. Put simply, an attractive nuisance is any man-made construct present upon land, which may lure children, and which can cause them bodily injury should they play on, in, or around it. The defining characteristic of an attractive nuisance is just that – that it is attractive to children and that the potential fun the attractive nuisance poses, entices a child like a moth to the flame. Swimming pools, playground equipment, and other artificial landscaping features can make your yard a magnet for every kid in the neighborhood, but the very things that might make your yard so enticing to a child may also be the very things that make it so potentially dangerous for them. As a result of this potential for harm, the law places a heightened duty on property owners who have items that will both attract children and present a unique potential for harm. The theory is that children are too young to appreciate the risk of harm these attractive nuisances pose, and therefore, because these items essentially induce a child into a hazardous area of your property, the property owner is expected to take special precautions to mitigate the risk of harm, for example, by putting a fence around a pool. Elements of Attractive Nuisance If the property owner knows, or reasonably should know, that children are likely to trespass upon his or her property; In response to an artificial condition present upon the land; Which the property owner knows, or reasonably should know poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury; Such that a child, because of their youth, does not discover the condition or realize the risk involved; and Said property owner fails to take reasonable precautions to safeguard against the risk of injury. Common Attract Nuisances Water Features Studies suggest that an adult can drown from as little as six tablespoons of water. This number is even smaller for a child. Water features on property – including fountains, pools, and wells – can pose an enormous risk of drowning to children who may want to splash around inside, particularly if they cannot gauge how deep the water is, and especially if they have not yet learned to swim. A swimming pool is the most common example of an attractive nuisance, and as the summer weather soon comes upon us, pool owners – especially owners of inground pools – should be particularly mindful of the hazard posed by the attractive nuisance. As a pool owner, you could be liable for accidents even if children sneak into your pool without your consent. Whether the pool is in-ground, above ground, or even a kiddie pool, you can reduce your risk by surrounding your pool area with a fence, installing a locking gate (preferably one with an audible alarm), and covering the pool with a safety cover when not in use. New Jersey has passed legislation specifically outlined the heightened obligation of pool owners. Under New Jersey’s swimming pool safety act, called “William’s Law,” any pool must be fenced or walled in with a structure of at least 5 feet high and without any openings wide enough for a 4-inch object to pass through it. If a pool owner fails to properly enclose the water feature and a child is injured as a result, the child’s family may be able to sue under the attractive nuisance doctrine, as well as raise a negligence per se claim in connection with the pool owner’s violation of William’s Law. Trampolines & Playground Equipment Most home playground injuries involve swing sets, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). To reduce the chance of accidents, therefore, the National Association of Home Inspectors recommends spacing swings at least 24 inches apart and at least 30 inches from the support frame. Swing sets – especially wooden ones – should be checked regularly for wear & tear, warping, or rot. Because most injuries from swings also involve falls, installing a shock-absorbing surface for your playground like sand, wood chips, or gravel, for example, can help mitigate the likelihood of injury. Trampolines can also pose a significant safety hazard to young children who may not know how to utilize one safely. If you are planning on purchasing a trampoline, look for a model that has a zippered entrance which can be locked. Additionally, consider installing a locked and alarmed fence around your yard or around the playground to make the feature inaccessible to uninvited users. Home Construction Projects Construction projects and the tools and equipment which may be present on a construction site can be kid magnets. Young children often get toy tool sets to play with, so seeing a real hammer or saw can be enticing. Rebuilding a deck, repaving a driveway, pouring concrete, building additions, and even repairing a roof can all present potentially dangerous conditions which a child may be drawn to. To some children, a ladder must be climbed or a hole must be jumped in. The law doesn’t expect homeowners to complete their construction projects overnight, but when stepping away, it is critical to turn off and put away power tools, remove heavy equipment if possible, and consider putting up hazard signs, safety cones, or even a barrier of caution tape to make the potential danger clearly evident. Our Tip: Be Alert to Hazards At the end of the day, even with due care it is impossible to prevent all eventualities, especially when children are involved, and unfortunately accidents do happen. At the same time, it is also important to be vigilant and to stay aware of hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions on our property which children may be drawn to. This is especially true if you live in a neighborhood with families who have children or near an area where children may be present, such as near a park or a school. Call The Lento Law Group If your child was the victim of an attractive nuisance or was otherwise injured on another person’s property, call the Lento Law Group today for a free phone consultation. Our caring, compassionate, and knowable staff will be happy to go over the facts of your potential case so that our experienced personal injury attorneys can see if you have a viable cause of action. There is absolutely no cost to you unless we secure a financial recovery on your behalf. Call today!
August 1, 2024
Alabama teacher and student rights bills highlight school tensions over student discipline. Let us help enforce your rights.
June 13, 2024
The mistakes of an assistant in a medical practice can threaten the medical professional’s license. Get skilled attorney defense.
June 13, 2024
By Larry Katz, Esquire • 12 June, 2024
By Joseph D. Lento May 21, 2024
TIf you are a medical professional providing reproductive care and counseling, you are likely well aware of the risks you face from new laws limiting access to abortions and related information and services. Your license and employment may be at risk. Let the Lento Law Group’s premier license defense attorneys help you invoke your legal rights to practice your medical profession in good conscience. New Bill Seeks to Protect Medical Providers The Connecticut legislature is considering a bill that would protect medical providers who share information about access to reproductive care. A media report on the new bill highlights how the bill responds to new threats against reproductive care providers who share information on abortion services. State legislatures across the country have restricted access to abortion services. Employers and licensing boards may construe those restrictions to prevent medical providers from sharing information about lawful reproductive care provided in other states, placing those medical professionals’ licenses and employment at risk. The Bill’s Particulars The new Connecticut bill, if enacted into law, would guarantee those medical providers the right to exercise their conscience, when sharing information about lawful abortion services in other states. Employers, including religious hospitals not providing abortion counseling or services, would be unable to retaliate against the medical providers sharing that information. The bill would also prohibit the state’s medical licensing authorities from taking into account licensing action in other states against those providers who follow their consciences. Reciprocal Conscience Rights Courts and legislatures have long worked to protect the conscience rights of medical providers who refuse on religious and related grounds to provide abortion counseling or services. The new Connecticut bill seeks to turn those so-called negative conscience rights into positive rights to provide abortion information on reciprocal conscience grounds. Medical providers refusing abortion services and counseling, and providers offering abortion services and counseling, have reciprocal rights and conscience interests. The new bill, if enacted into law, would recognize those reciprocal rights and interests. Defending Your Conscience Rights The above bill indicates that you may have certain legal rights and interests that protect you when you face employment or licensing issues over the exercise of your conscience. Our attorneys can assist you through the license investigation process to ensure that you have the best opportunity to retain your professional license free of any discipline. We can also help you navigate your employer’s grievance procedures to ensure that your employer respects your legal rights and interests, and that you preserve your job, career, reputation, and income. Premier License Defense for Reproductive Care Professionals If you are a medical professional providing reproductive care and counseling, our offices across the country offer premier attorneys to handle your professional license defense and employment issues. It is important that you call us as soon as you encounter an employment or licensing problem. Call 833.536.8652 now for the representation you need for your employment and license defense issues relating to reproductive care.
More Posts
Share by: