Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 50 the phenomenon that value is based more on fame and notoriety than on good, quoting, "'We live in a society where the line between celebrity and infamy has almost disappeared. What matters most is fame and it is not terribly important how you get famous.'" The report noted that Simpson's past accomplishments in sports were well established, and opined that Simpson had an appeal in international and ethnic markets unaffected by the opinion of others that he committed these murders. The conflict between this evidence and the defense evidence that the market for Simpson memorabilia and services had dried up was for the jury to resolve. In denying the motion for new trial, the trial court called plaintiffs' evidence credible. Amount of Punitive Damages Simpson contends the verdict totaling $ 25 million in punitive damages is excessive. The amount of punitive damages is determined in the discretion of the jury. An appellate court will not reverse the jury's determination unless the award as a matter of law is excessive or appears so grossly disproportionate to the relevant factors that it raises a presumption [**103] it was the result of passion or prejudice. ( Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal. 3d 910, 927-928; Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1220, 1257-1259.) In reviewing the verdict the appellate court is guided by three main factors: the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the actual harm suffered by the victims, and the wealth of the defendant. ( Neal v. PAGE 37 86 Cal. App. 4th 573, *623; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, **103; 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, ***527; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 759 Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal. 3d at p. 928; Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates, supra, 235 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1258.) n15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n15 In an action by the representative of a decedent's estate, the punitive damages must be compared to the actual harm suffered by the decedent, not the
Page 51 limited economic damages recoverable by the estate. ( Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal. 3d at p. 929; Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co. (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1598, 1602-1605, 260 Cal. Rptr. 305.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**104] [***528] Review of these factors in the unique circumstances of this case shows that the verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice and was not excessive as a matter of law. In this case the first two factors, the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct and the severity of harm to the victims, have the greatest weight [*624] legally possible. In effect the jury found that Simpson committed two deliberate, vicious murders. This is the most reprehensible conduct that society condemns and is ordinarily punished under California criminal law by a sentence of death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. (Pen. Code, @@ 187, 189, 190, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3); see BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559, 583, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809, 116 S. Ct. 1589 [suggesting comparing the punitive damages to statutory criminal and civil penalties for comparable misconduct].) The harm suffered by the victims was the maximum possible; they were intentionally killed. This case cannot be compared to punitive damages involving a business fraud resulting only in economic harm. Considering the outrageousness of Simpson's conduct and the enormity [**105] of its consequences, the amount of $ 25 million, in the abstract, is not offensive and does not raise a presumption the verdict resulted from passion or prejudice. n16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n16 A few cases involving punitive damages assessed against a civil defendant found to have murdered the decedent are collected in an annotation (1993) 12 A.L.R.5th 195, section 29[b], page 361, and later cases (2000 supp.) page 26.
Page 1 and 2: Page 1 SHARON RUFO et al., Plaintif
Page 3 and 4: Page 3 Other physical evidence from
Page 5 and 6: Page 5 People v. McCray (1997) 58 C
Page 7 and 8: Page 7 Nancy Ney was a director of
Page 9 and 10: Page 9 Simpson contends "a period o
Page 11 and 12: Page 11 kill her, but also serves t
Page 13 and 14: Page 13 Cal. 3d 573, 584-587, 209 C
Page 15 and 16: Page 15 and to explain her conduct
Page 17 and 18: Page 17 weighing process, shows the
Page 19 and 20: Page 19 evidence about any score on
Page 21 and 22: Page 21 implanted in the minds of t
Page 23 and 24: Page 23 29B pt. 4 West's Ann. Evid.
Page 25 and 26: Page 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 27 and 28: Page 27 be bound by the manner in w
Page 29 and 30: Page 29 head. Simpson appears to re
Page 31 and 32: Page 31 by SID in the laboratory, b
Page 33 and 34: Page 33 opinion as to the validatio
Page 35 and 36: Page 35 But the presumption of prej
Page 37 and 38: Page 37 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 39 and 40: Page 39 jury award, however, was in
Page 41 and 42: Page 41 Punitive damages are not aw
Page 43 and 44: Page 43 Freeman also reviewed the d
Page 45 and 46: Page 45 memorabilia shop in Manhatt
Page 47 and 48: Page 47 likeness in the future; Sim
Page 49: Page 49 italics added.) In Devlin v
Page 53 and 54: Page 53 PAGE 38 86 Cal. App. 4th 57
Page 55 and 56: Page 55 PAGE 39 86 Cal. App. 4th 57

Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?