08-28-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mmir. f ■ • i and consequences of Che wrong and its effect on Che plaintiff. Carev v. Piohus. 435 U.S. 247, 263-264 (1978. Although riental suffering and emocional anguish are essentially subjective, genuine injury in this respect inay be evidenced by one's conduct and observed by others." Id. at note 20. while plaintiff's own tescir.cny may be sufficient to establish humiliation or mental distress, damage awards have been reduced where no effort was made to identify an objective basis for quantifying the loss.- The Minnesota courts have reqpiired plaintiff to show actual injury before he receives mental anguish damages under the MHRA. A violation of civil rights by itself is not sufficient.' Applicable case law illustrates that the range of damages for mental anguish is generally sec between $450 and $15,000.* The following caselaw, cited in footnote 1 had substantial evidence of emotional distress produced at trial. ’’See, e.o. Eailev v. Andrews, 311 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1987) (finding in a 51933 acticn that ccir.pensacory daff-age award cf 255,000 was not a raasonable estimate of intangible loss where plaintiff lost no time from work and did not incur bills for treatment of physical and emotional injuries). See, e,g.. Erebia V. Chm/sler Plastics Products, 772 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir. 1985) (evidence did not support dam.ages of 310, jOC for emotional distress where evidence consisted of plaintiff's statements that he was highly upset about slurs and that he could only cake sc much). Minneacolis Police Pert, v. Minneapolis Ccmn. on Civil Rights, 402 N.W.2d 125 (Minn.App. 1587i. 'Vovk V. Tom Thumb Food Markets. No. 91-2377, slip op. at 1 (Minn.App. July 28, 1552» 1310,000), Dect , o: Hurar. riohts v. Tasks Unlimited, Inc.. No. 92-981, slip op. at 1 (Minn.App. Nov. 3, 1952) i515,000), de.Rochemcnt v. D & M Printing. No. 94-159, slip op. at 1 .Minn.App. 3pt. 20, 1994) $10.000). Giuliani v. Stuart Coro., 512 N.A.2d 539 (Minn.App. 1954) ($12,000), Evans v. Ford Motor Co.. 788 F.3upp. 1318 (C.Minn. 1991 (<$10,300', Tretter v. Liouioak, Intern. Inc., 356 N.W.2d 713 (Minn.App. 1964) ($4,500), teot . of H’u.man .Ric.nts v. Soiten, 424 N.W.2d 815 iMi.nn.App, 1938) ($3,000), State nv 7ccoer v. Mower C;. . 434 N.W.2d 494 (Minn.App. 1989) ($2,000'. State v. Pcrter Farm.s. Inc.. 332 N.W.2d 543 (Minn.App. 1936i ($500), Siourdscr. v. Isanti Ocuntv. 386 N.W.Zd 715 (Minn. 1986) ($450). 16 I