Clemson pays $5.3 million in sexual assault defamation lawsuit
- Thread starter mUSCle Gamecock
- Start date
Was curious, so I googled for more details.
The false accuser was demonstrably lying, and her claim was still pursued for years. I'm glad he got paid.
He Was Accused Of Sexual Assault By A Woman Whose Boyfriend Later Admitted Lying. A Jury Just Awarded Him $5.3M.
A jury verdict resulted in what must be one of the largest – if not the largest – monetary award a falsely accused college student has ever received in such a case. In early September 2015, a Clemson University student named Erin Wingo kissed fellow student Andrew Pampu, according to a lawsuit...
www.dailywire.com
The false accuser was demonstrably lying, and her claim was still pursued for years. I'm glad he got paid.
Agreed. Obviously, the thread title is false because Clemson wasn't even a defendant in the case at hand but a $5.3MM verdict against the accuser, her boyfriend and her father may not be worth the paper it's printed on. I don't know the details, but these accusations, when proven false, can be very damaging to the accused. I am all for not chilling a woman's right, incentive or desire to bring accusations when assaulted, it is an hateful, horrible crime. When proven the accusations are proven false however, there should be more consequence than a charge of "filing a false police report," which is what we often see.
Agreed, there needs to be serious consequences to false accusations of rape or sexual misconduct. Especially if there is evidence of malicious intent.
How about a blanket rule of Plaintiff will pay 10% of whatever money they're trying to get in the case if they lose? Maybe that would end the frivolous lawsuits we see so often? In the case of someone not having the 10%, maybe that fee is levied on the attorney who is willing to take the case. If they think it's a valid case that they can win, there should be no risk, right?
Interesting thought. Many states (SC included) have costs and attorney fee awards as a counter to frivolous suits. I'm not sure anyone has gone so far as to include the lawyer as a payor. Then again, I have been out of the litigation game for a spell. It's a slippery slope for sure.
Only if authorized by statute or contract. As in the case of a frivolous proceedings action. Basically they have to prove you brought the action for some reason other than the goal of the lawsuit to qualify as frivolous. It's not just because the case is unsuccessful or even a "long shot." There are a lot of reasons to not quash folks right to sue and few that support it. In the case at hand, it is usually one person's word against the other which is difficult to determine. Clearly, in this matter, a jury found the alleged assailant's story to be more credible.
Only on punitive damages intended to punish a defendant and that cap depends on other factors. Compensatory damages are not limited to my knowledge. Again, a current litigation attorney may weigh in as it has been awhile for me.
