YOUCH!!! That hurts a LOT, doesn't it Fedex?

[J D]

Those are the kinds of cases you read about which involve severe emotional distress.  Harassment cases can get to the same level of severity, with respect to the emotional and psychological damage, particularly if the harassment persists and escalates over a long period of time.  That's why I think it's ludicrous to suggest that a rational person might choose to suffer this kind of damage in exchange for a damage award.

Have fun in Torts, btw.

[SCgrad]

Those are the kinds of cases you read about which involve severe emotional distress.  Harassment cases can get to the same level of severity, with respect to the emotional and psychological damage, particularly if the harassment persists and escalates over a long period of time.  That's why I think it's ludicrous to suggest that a rational person might choose to suffer this kind of damage in exchange for a damage award.

Have fun in Torts, btw.

your equating verbal harassment to the death of a family member.  if you can't make a comparison that could possibly be within the scope of this argument, then you have nothing to say.  go ahead, give it a shot.  come up with the worst thing that could HAVE ACTUALLY POSSIBLY HAPPENED to these guys and ask me if I would take it (over just working as a truck driver for two years).  Can't do it?  That's what I thought.

[SCgrad]

btw, i made a poll

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64339.msg1417940/topicseen.html#msg1417940

[H4CS]

your equating verbal harassment to the death of a family member.  if you can't make a comparison that could possibly be within the scope of this argument, then you have nothing to say.  go ahead, give it a shot.  come up with the worst thing that could HAVE ACTUALLY POSSIBLY HAPPENED to these guys and ask me if I would take it (over just working as a truck driver for two years).  Can't do it?  That's what I thought.

SC, you're all over the place on this one.  I don't get it, the alternative is not just driving a truck but not getting harassed.  How would it be any different if instead of a truck driver, other workers in other professions were harassed? 

[SCgrad]

your equating verbal harassment to the death of a family member.  if you can't make a comparison that could possibly be within the scope of this argument, then you have nothing to say.  go ahead, give it a shot.  come up with the worst thing that could HAVE ACTUALLY POSSIBLY HAPPENED to these guys and ask me if I would take it (over just working as a truck driver for two years).  Can't do it?  That's what I thought.

SC, you're all over the place on this one.  I don't get it, the alternative is not just driving a truck but not getting harassed.  How would it be any different if instead of a truck driver, other workers in other professions were harassed? 

i'm putting myself in their shoes.  I wouldn't want to be a truck driver, but if I were, I would take the option of being one that got harassed on a daily basis if there was an 11 million dollar payoff at the end.

[H4CS]

your equating verbal harassment to the death of a family member.  if you can't make a comparison that could possibly be within the scope of this argument, then you have nothing to say.  go ahead, give it a shot.  come up with the worst thing that could HAVE ACTUALLY POSSIBLY HAPPENED to these guys and ask me if I would take it (over just working as a truck driver for two years).  Can't do it?  That's what I thought.

SC, you're all over the place on this one.  I don't get it, the alternative is not just driving a truck but not getting harassed.  How would it be any different if instead of a truck driver, other workers in other professions were harassed? 

i'm putting myself in their shoes.  I wouldn't want to be a truck driver, but if I were, I would take the option of being one that got harassed on a daily basis if there was an 11 million dollar payoff at the end.

They didn't get a choice.  I still don't see where you're going with this.

[SCgrad]

your equating verbal harassment to the death of a family member.  if you can't make a comparison that could possibly be within the scope of this argument, then you have nothing to say.  go ahead, give it a shot.  come up with the worst thing that could HAVE ACTUALLY POSSIBLY HAPPENED to these guys and ask me if I would take it (over just working as a truck driver for two years).  Can't do it?  That's what I thought.

SC, you're all over the place on this one.  I don't get it, the alternative is not just driving a truck but not getting harassed.  How would it be any different if instead of a truck driver, other workers in other professions were harassed? 

i'm putting myself in their shoes.  I wouldn't want to be a truck driver, but if I were, I would take the option of being one that got harassed on a daily basis if there was an 11 million dollar payoff at the end.

They didn't get a choice.  I still don't see where you're going with this.

wait, wrong thread.  did you read the whole thread?  i was only saying that 11 million dollars seemed really excessive (everyone agreed on this, i think) and later that physical pain is much worse.  also, that accepting this would be rational.  that was something put forward by JD.  He said that a rational person would not accept 11 million dollars for the mental anguish and whatnot.  I said one would.  I set up a hypothetical that would pass any test of bias and several people voted that they would take the money.  What I am saying is really simple.

A.  The amount is excessive
B.  The physical pain common in accident victims is much worse than emotional pain
C.  A rational person might accept 11 million dollars in compensation for extreme emotional pain vs. not having any emotional pain.
D.  A rational person would not accept 11 million dollars if they have to live the rest of their life with a pothole for a face vs. not being hurt at all.

[J D]

My only point is that when laypeople hear "severe emotional distress" they tend to think it's merely a case about hurt feelings, a hypersensitive plaintiff who didn't get an apology and now wants money instead, etc.  People have to understand the full potential extent of the harm we're talking about here.  It's not merely a matter of sticks and stones.  Like I said, racial (and sexual) harassment cases are UGLY; for illustrative cases, see, e.g., Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (1986); Dickerson v. New Jersey, Dep't of Human Services, 767 F. Supp. 605 (1991).  And a rational person doesn't want to put up with that AT ALL, even if they're guaranteed to get a lot of money at the end.  A rational person wants to work in an environment that is not hostile or abusive.  I resent the implication to the contrary. 

[J D]

your equating verbal harassment to the death of a family member.  if you can't make a comparison that could possibly be within the scope of this argument, then you have nothing to say.  go ahead, give it a shot.  come up with the worst thing that could HAVE ACTUALLY POSSIBLY HAPPENED to these guys and ask me if I would take it (over just working as a truck driver for two years).  Can't do it?  That's what I thought.

SC, you're all over the place on this one.  I don't get it, the alternative is not just driving a truck but not getting harassed.  How would it be any different if instead of a truck driver, other workers in other professions were harassed? 

i'm putting myself in their shoes.  I wouldn't want to be a truck driver, but if I were, I would take the option of being one that got harassed on a daily basis if there was an 11 million dollar payoff at the end.

They didn't get a choice.  I still don't see where you're going with this.

wait, wrong thread.  did you read the whole thread?  i was only saying that 11 million dollars seemed really excessive (everyone agreed on this, i think) and later that physical pain is much worse.  also, that accepting this would be rational.  that was something put forward by JD.  He said that a rational person would not accept 11 million dollars for the mental anguish and whatnot.  I said one would.  I set up a hypothetical that would pass any test of bias and several people voted that they would take the money.  What I am saying is really simple.

A.  The amount is excessive
B.  The physical pain common in accident victims is much worse than emotional pain
C.  A rational person might accept 11 million dollars in compensation for extreme emotional pain
D.  A rational person would not accept 11 million dollars if they have to live the rest of their life with a pothole for a face

Rephrase the last two; the relevant inquiry is whether a rational person would rather not be injured, or be injured in that manner and be paid 11 million dollars for it.  I submit that rational people would rather not be injured.

[SCgrad]

My only point is that when laypeople hear "severe emotional distress" they tend to think it's merely a case about hurt feelings, a hypersensitive plaintiff who didn't get an apology and now wants money instead, etc.  People have to understand the full potential extent of the harm we're talking about here.  It's not merely a matter of sticks and stones.  Like I said, racial (and sexual) harassment cases are UGLY; for illustrative cases, see, e.g., Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094 (1986); Dickerson v. New Jersey, Dep't of Human Services, 767 F. Supp. 605 (1991).  And a rational person doesn't want to put up with that AT ALL, even if they're guaranteed to get a lot of money at the end.  A rational person wants to work in an environment that is not hostile or abusive.  I resent the implication to the contrary. 

please point to where i said it was "sticks and stones" or anything like that?  I think you assumed that because my position is slightly different from yours, that I must be completely insensitive to what happened.  I have seen people hurt like this (family members) and understand.  please refrain from talking down to me if you want me to take you seriously.

Look at the thread I made, it looks like several people would put up with it.  maybe there are all irrational, I don't know.