Smoking Gun Witness Not Required

David A. Szwak

Smoking Gun Witness Not Required

Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:44 pm

With regard to the issue of other the defendant had active in a willful manner, the court noted that "it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce a 'smoking gun' or other form of definitive proof of defendants malicious intent. Instead 'where intent has not been explicitly express, the trier of fact may deduce it from the surroundings circumstances,' citing Mirocha v. TRW, Inc., 805 F.Supp. 663, 675 (U.S.D.C. Ind. 1992)." The court found that plaintiff had produced evidences that "Trans Union failed to reinvestigate the matter to the extent of its statutory duty after Mrs. Cushman had twice alerted it to the possibility of the report's inaccuracy. We are satisfied that a jury could reasonably conclude that Trans Union did so willfully."

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Postby Administrator » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:50 pm

Thomas v. InfoLink Screening Services, Inc.
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 680510
D.Conn.,2006.

Smoking gun witness is not required.

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Postby Administrator » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:53 pm

Whitesides v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.
125 F.Supp.2d 813
W.D.La.,2000.
Dec 04, 2000

SAME


Return to “Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests