- 19 -
of them concerning the absence of loss of consortium. They
contend these facts are irrelevant in proving whether they
actually suffered emotional or physical distress. We think this
objection goes to the weight of the evidence, not to its
relevance. Certainly, if petitioners had incurred such expenses,
the evidence would be admissible. Accordingly, petitioners'
objections are overruled.
Paragraphs 87, 97, and 109 of the stipulation (in re the
Christians, Arnold Leroy and Rosemary Souza, and the Browns)
state that petitioners:
admit that the actual division of settlement proceeds
among all of the Milk Producer Plaintiffs was made on
the basis of the quantities of milk delivered by each
of the Milk Producer Plaintiffs and not on the amount
of emotional distress suffered by them.
We believe the first half of the statement is relevant to show
how the distribution was administered; however, as shown above,
all petitioners did not receive the same percentage of their lost
revenue. And even if the distribution was made using the lost
revenue as an administratively convenient rule of thumb, it does
not follow that the proceeds were awarded for something other
than emotional distress. The statement is relevant if read to
mean only that no individualized assessment of emotional damage
as to each of the 1,000 plaintiffs was separately made. With
that understanding, the objection is overruled.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011