b322da wrote:In steps the lamb where lions fear to tread.
I think that it may be somewhat disingenuous of this forum to fairly unanimously consider a decedent's estate to be his "widow," particularly where much, but by no means all, of the financial value of that estate may have come from the sale of what a jury has found to be defamatory material, and with the jury having found that nearly 3/4 of the damages assessed were for unjust enrichment. Furthermore, a real question as to who will pay what, considering that the other defendant, the publisher, apparently had insufficient insurance, is there in between the lines.
I look forward to hearing from someone who, when it happens, can let us know a little more about the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit.
I am taking no position on the merits of the lawsuit. I know only what I read in the OP's cite, which appears to most commentators here to be quite adequate on which to base one's conclusions.
Jim
It is instinctive to extend benevolence & make concessions for the welfare of young widows with children. Nothing disingenuous about this as there is not a person here who wouldnt want every benefit for our loved ones in such a case.
It is my understanding that the publisher was not a part of this suit and has no liability. I also dont think JV has a case against the publisher. It never printed anything derogatory about him. It merely printed a book that made reference to an unknown as "Scruff face"