undefined

points

[-]

To be fair, is there any corporation or high net worth individual ever who, after losing a lawsuit, said “You know what, we accept the court’s decision that we were wrong and will be reflecting on how to do better in the future.”

Never. That never ever happens.

by londons_explore7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The lawyer himself is guaranteed another 6 months of lucrative work of they appeal...

Whereas no appeal is effectively him getting fired.

by Legend244013 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

On the grounds of "I have infinite money and lawyers to drag this thing out forever, whether I'll win or not."

by 2b3a5112 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Nothing like 'vexatious litigation' in the US?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

by Legend244012 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There is, but it's a pretty high bar to clear. Merely exhausting one's appeals does not qualify as vexatious. He could keep going for years as long as his lawyers make vaguely plausible arguments each time.

by artninja198812 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

To any lawyers in here, is there an argument to be made for the statue of limitations not to apply here

by gamblor95610 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No. Once the jury made its finding of fact as to when the event giving rise to the claim occurred (and to when the SOL clock would start ticking), the appeal would have to determine that the jury could not have reasonably made such a finding. It's very, very rare for an appeals court to overturn a finding of fact.

by dnnddidiej9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Out interest how does it work with new evidence then? I guess in civil less likely than criminal (new DNA technology etc.)

by duskwuff12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> One wonders on what grounds?

Invent a time machine; send a lawyer back to file a new lawsuit within the statute of limitations.

by shdh9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Two words: “billable hours”

by colechristensen12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

He lost on the grounds of a statue of limitations defense which is exactly the kind of thing which is easily appealable.

by qyph12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Are you a lawyer? IANAL but my understanding is it would be difficult for an appeal to succeed. Appeals courts only evaluate review matters of law, not of fact. Whether is has been more than the 3 year limit the statute of limitations places is a matter of fact I think. And the advisory jury makes this much harder to appeal. What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?

by colechristensen12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not saying it will succeed, but what counts as having passed the statue of limitations and various workarounds and modifications of the time period particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.

by turtlesdown119 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.

No, findings of disputed fact - like when Musk had reason to know of his injury, are determined by a jury (or a bench judge). Appeals courts examine whether the law was applied correctly, not what the jury's fact finding was. There may be an avenue of appeal that the jury was improperly instructed, but determining questions of fact are exactly -not- the bread and butter of an appeals court.

by frankchn12 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

In this case, I think it is a jury's finding of fact re: the statute of limitations. Unless the appellate court finds that the trial court and jury is clearly erroneous, it will usually give significant deference to that finding.

by dctoedt12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's even harder than "clearly erroneous" (the standard applied when a judge makes fact findings without a jury). Under the Seventh Amendment, if a hypothetical reasonable jury could have reached the result that the actual jury did, then that's the ball game [0], even if the trial judge or appellate-court judges would have reached a different result.

[0] Assuming that the trial judge didn't materially screw up in admitting or excluding evidence, or in instructing the jury about the law, and also assuming no proof of juror bias or improper influence.

by gamblor95610 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

A state of limitations case is actually one of the strongest kinds of legal defenses a defendant can have.

It's a foundational issue that goes to whether the court is even allowed to proceed with the case. A defendant could be guilty/liable/whatever of the alleged claims, and it wouldn't matter. If the statute of limitations has run, they're in the clear.

The only counter to an SOL defense is to try and claim that the SOL was paused for some reason, but those exceptions are very narrow and wouldn't apply here (and in the real world very rarely apply to civil cases).

by enraged_camel12 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Pretty sure it's the opposite: appeals mostly only work when the decision is not clear cut, and the statute of limitations is.

by pixl9712 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Typically if they bring up a case like this a judge again will get pissy and dismiss it with prejudice.

You can try to file it again, but that gets to the point where the judge can throw your ass directly in jail for 30 days, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

by AnimalMuppet12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Filing the same lawsuit a second time is different. They're talking about appealing the decision in this case. You don't get tossed in jail for that.

But (at least in the US), the appeals court does not have to accept your appeal. When you file the appeal, you have to give them enough reason for them to even listen to your appeal, instead of rejecting it from the first filing.