It depends.
(No, really…)
Is there an insurance company out there that she has a subornation agreement with, that has to be reimbursed for any winnings?
Did MB win on his counterclaim in an amount equal or greater to $10k?
Does she owe her attorneys any fees?
Strictly speaking, taking your example at face value, she gets $10k. But other factors come into play.
@ekat, I have a question, too. It may cause the EIM to throw rotten tomatoes at me, but I need clarification.
Is each charge against each defendant decided to add up to 100%? Otherwise, I think the math would approach advanced calculus. For example, JK v SGF, negligence: decided 45/55.
JK v MB, negligence: decided 51/49. Etc.
Is that how it works, and I apologize to the EIM for my thick headedness. It comes with the E part…
This. This may be the reason why RG is not included in any accusations.
Who wants to spread the blame and reduce Lauren Kanerek’s responsibility for what she did? Keep RG out of it, and make Lauren pay.
Speaking for the EIM, questions are never, ever objected to, EVER. The posters who delight in arguing with the expert, experienced posters or repost their same post repeatedly, worded slightly differently just because they enjoy stirring the pot are the posters who cause the ire of everyone. The wonderful professional posters on these threads aren’t being paid and give their knowledge because they enjoy their profession and expertise and like sharing their knowledge. They have all been very gracious to repetitive, argumentative posters who are admittedly ignorant of the law.
You know, I not only hope this jury gets to take notes, I hope they get at least one calculator.
Individually, yes, you’re looking at (I picked RC, because she has the least number of claims to defend)
RC - negligence - is she 51/49% liable
- negligent infliction of emotional distress. 51/49
- intentional infliction of emotional distress 51/49.
So, theoretically, the jury could say yep, RC was 51% negligent, but…nope to the two IED claims. So, she is in the money pool at the end, so to speak, when they start deciding who pays what percentage.
*DISCLAIMER - I am not saying RC will be found negligent. This is hypothetical only!
Einhorn said that RG could be apportioned blame, reducing LKs exposure, even without being added as a defendant.
MBs award from LK would be reduced due to the blame apportioned to RG. Meanwhile, MB does not get an award from RG because he’s not named as a defendant.
[quote=“CurrentlyHorseless, post:4497, topic:780076, full:true”]
I may have said this wrong, meaning, Lk and Rg would each be found to be the substantive cause of the wiretapping. So they are both liable, but as to which of them is more liable, Lk can make the argument that it’s RG, not her, who is mostly liable, so she is on the hook for less money damages that she owes. Even if RGb isn’t a party to the case.
So the each individual defendant is evaluated on their own in step one,. Are they the substantive cause of the harm? Yes? (Hypothetical)
Step two is apportioning damages between them.
Does that make more sense?
But yes, it could be a tactic by MB to increase what LK would owe if found liable on the wiretapping. But he may have missed the boat on adding RG and JK, as i am not up to speed on NJ law. Some places have time limits on doing that, because if you find out only at discovery, the statute of limitations may be tolled. Other places don’t because judicial efficiency and all that.
[quote=“Einhorn, post:4500, topic:780076, full:true”]
MB is suing just LK for the wiretapping and harm from the psychological campaign.
Suppose LK succeeds in convincing the jury that it is RG who placed the recorders, etc., so LK is less than 51% responsible.
The “damage” done by the recording to MB is $25,000.
Does LK owe nothing, given that she convinced the jury that RG had more responsibility than she and she had less than 51% liability?
Ah, you wouldn’t like a Caesar then if you aren’t at tomato fan! I’ve always found Bloody Marys to be rather bland compared to Caesars. I’d love a Mimosa in the warmer weather, though I wouldn’t turn down either anytime.
If Lk convinces the jury she is not the substantive cause of the wiretapping, she owes mb nothing.
If she is found, (as is RG) to be the substantive cause of the wiretapping, (so each of them, in their individual capacity, are more than 51% the cause of the wiretapping as compared to MB ) then the jury will determine as between Lk and rg, how much the damages are, and will apportion a percentage of the owed damages to each defendant… The jury could very well decide RG did the lions share of the work and Lk only owes say $ 1k of the $24k in damages. Then mb is SOL on collecting the $24k from rg, as he didn’t sue rg
NJ’s wiretapping civil claim isn’t about comparative negligence, like the others claims.
It says this:
2A:156A-24. Civil action for damages, attorney’s fee by persons whose communications are intercepted unlawfully
24. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:
a. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100.00 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000.00, whichever is higher;
b. Punitive damages; and
c. A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
So the jury could find RG made the recordings at LK’s direction Or of his own volition, but it was LK that disclosed and used the recordings.
If they were to decide RG made the recordings, and LK distributed them, she’s on the hook.
What if MBs attorneys present evidence that RG is, for all intents and purposes, LKs employee?
Would you expect the jury to apportion more blame to LK and if that employer-employee relationship was established?
Speaking hypothetically, I wonder if it would be a hard sell to convince the jury that RG was the more responsible party for the surveillance stuff if the receipts show that LK/JK paid for all the equipment involved.
I think the defense has enough proof that RG was LK’s “go fer”, so trying to pin it on him won’t work.
Re bolded. I don’t understand how each of RG and LK, in their individual capacity could have more than 51% responsibility. I can see how LK and RG combined could have more than 51% responsibility.
Let’s say MBs share is zero — no failure to mitigate.
If it turns out the RG is considered to be the primary mover, so over 51% responsible, then LK can not also be over 51% responsible. At most one person can be over 51% responsible.
Since LK is less than 51% responsible, does she get off scot free?
If MBs attorneys make a motion to implead RG after they get through discovery (legal professionals- I think I got the procedural terminology correct, but if I bungled it, please let me know)
I would imagine that they are then entitled to financial disclosures from RG… correct?
Soooo… they could use that information to concretely establish, beyond a doubt, whether or not he was LKs employee…
Just a thought.
It would be easier just to depose him as a fact witness. Why go after his finances when he doesn’t seem to have much?
Did you miss @ekat ‘s post about NJ wiretapping law?
Comparative negligence doesn’t apply. So the wiretapping claim is a bit of a different animal than the other claims when it comes to deciding damages.
I agree - it’s not worth going after RG, and impleading him, if the goal is to get damages from him. He doesn’t have any money or assets to speak of.
But if the goal is to obligate him to make financial disclosures as a named party to the litigation, then that might establish that he is 100% LKs employee. And if that can be established, then LK might have to bear the full weight of the damages for anything related to MBs wiretapping counterclaim… even if it was RG who placed all the recording devices, etc.
I hope my logic makes a little more sense with this explanation.
And of course - if the actual legal professionals need to correct me, because I have it all wrong or am overthinking it… please do so! 
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
