The Palladium-Item has an article on the recent judgment in Tippecanoe County for $154 million against the makers of a tree stand. The headline says “Attorney with local ties wins largest ever settlement in Indiana.” It was a default judgment. In what sense can this be called a “settlement?” The article isn’t much better. It continues to refer to the judgment as a “settlement” and doesn’t mention until the 12th paragraph which is on the second page online that no one from the other side appeared for the trial.
When I saw the town and the headline, Doug, I was going to hit you up for a loan. If a company doesn’t even show for trial, I assume the chances of collection on that “record settlement” are nil.
They say collection is 9/10ths of the law. Or something like that.
Very few reporters who cover the courts have even the most basic understanding of the subject matter. Combine that with what seems like some puffery on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel (what “difference” has been made right now, precisely?), and there you have it.
The Palladium-Item got rid of a lot of staff recently, so the person who wrote the story may not have been very experienced with legal jargon. Not that it is an excuse for the reporter or the Palladium-Item, but I imagine that most ordinary folks don’t have a clue that there is a difference between a settlement and a default judgment. Reporters should know better, however.