3 posts • Page 1 of 1
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."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests