1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running 2018 NASCAR thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Feb 18, 2018.

  1. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I can't make a up a joke, that's just pathetic.
     
    2muchcoffeeman and maumann like this.
  2. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

  3. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Pretty sure SHR will miss the sponsor more than the driver.
     
  4. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

  5. Wait, what ...
    Fucking NASCAR ....
     
  6. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    These stories are fascinating. A few years back, a golf writer (Gary Van Sickle I think) broke down Sam Snead's all-time wins compared to Tiger, who at the time looked like a sure bet to top Snead. Several of Snead's wins were 36-holers and/or short fields and stuff that just wouldn't pass muster today. But wins were wins -- or in Bobby's case, wins were not wins.
     
  7. There are still a handful of Snead’s victories not recognized by the PGA Tour.

    NASCAR is the worst for this stuff. Mark Martin’s 1988 penalty was the worst.
     
  8. Greg Biffle found guilty of invasion of privacy for installing cameras in his bedroom and bathroom of his home.
    He used cameras to catch his wife in an affair.

    Yes, he was found guilty. The jury awarded his now-ex a $1.


    Former NASCAR driver Greg Biffle found guilty of invading ex-wife's privacy
     
    franticscribe likes this.
  9. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    $1 in damages speaks volumes.

    There is apparently still an opportunity for Biffle's wife to ask the jury for punitive damages. I can't see them giving her any after finding such small actual damages, but you never know.
     
  10. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    Punitive damages are about the conduct of the defendant and discouraging others from repeating it, not about compensating the victim for her injuries. While actual damages can be a guide for punitive damages, they are not some fixed limit. A jury could find that while the former Mrs. Biffle did not suffer any injuries in this instance, Mr. Biffle and others like him should be punished for and discouraged from such offensive conduct. See the Supreme Court case from Colorado about a guy suing because his BMW had a slight scratch. The punitive damages were eventually overturned because they were so outrageously disproportionate to actual damages, but the point stands that actual damages do not limit punitive damages except at some absurd point. Also, note that the Colorado courts had approved the punitive damages. The case also provides some of the factors and reasons for punitive damages (repeated similar acts, etc.).
    In this case, yeah, the actual damages probably reveal the jurors thoughts regarding the former Mrs. Biffle and they aren't about to give her some windfall.
     
  11. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    I don't need a lesson on punitive damages, but thanks.

    Yes, it is possible the jury could come back with something much larger. Those scenarios are generally rare where a jury awards minimum actual damages and significant punitive damages.

    Regardless, N.C. law caps punitive damages at treble the actual damages (so $3 in this case) or $250,000, whichever is greater. So we won't be seeing an award like that in the Hulk Hogan or Erin Andrews privacy invasion cases.
     
  12. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    maumann likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page