Sietch wrote:]The city settled because they believed they were likely to lose and doing so was cheaper than losing.
Strib wrote:Minneapolis City Attorney Susan L. Segal said it was in the best interests of the city to settle. "We believe the police acted reasonably, but you never know what a jury is going to do with a case,"
If a jury had concluded that the seven plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been violated and awarded $50,000 to each, plus defense attorney's fees, "it could have been quite substantial," Segal said.
Civil defendants do this kind of felicific calculus every day. They fight the cases they think they can win and minimize their losses on the rest. Sometimes they settle cases they think they can win, when the payout is small and way less than what it would cost to litigate. This isn't one of those.
I don't see where the City thought they would lose, I see where they did not trust a jury decision. Two different things. As the original complaint contained three issues, two of which were thrown out by higher courts (and all three by a lower court), there is no clear indication of which way things would go. As always, jury make up would play a big part in the outcome and that is a guess until they are chosen. And even then is is no sure matter.
As for settling on cases they could win but are small, that is my point precisely. Not fighting these cases may make sense case by case but they only lead to a precedent for more such claims in the future. Death by a thousand cuts if you will. If the city would have fought earlier ones and won, then what are the odds an attorney would take a similar case in the future? When the precedents are against you it is a hard and expensive hill to climb to change them. I know of one individual who has made and "won" three such claims against police departments which is a basis for my disgust at this practice. He may have won more but he "moved" from the area and has not been able to return. I am also aware of several other such instances involving officers. Not only does it encourage small frivolous suits (in my opinion) but also tarnishes the officer(s) involved as it implies wrong doing on their part.
I do agree that dealing to get a lesser penalty on a case in which the City is clearly or at least very likely in the wrong is a good practice but not on those cases where they are clearly in the right. Winning a principle can be expensive on the face of it but it can save a lot of money in the long run.
[quote=Sietch] Those kids didn't sue because they thought the city might settle a lawsuit with them. They sued because they were wronged by the police. The source of these lawsuits is civil rights violations. Merely fighting lawsuits isn't a strategy for reducing the number of people suing for police misconduct.[/quote]
They sued because they thought they were wronged. As I stated above, two of the claims were dismissed so evidently two of their "thoughts" were wrong. Nothing stating the strength or weakness of either side appears to have been made, just that one claim appeared to have enough validity to be heard in court unlike the others. That the claim could be heard in court does not mean they will win. Too, there is no evidence that they would even have received that amount of money if they won, just that they were suing for that amount or more. It is possible the city could have lost and paid less than what they settled on, isn't it?
