versus arco products company i think it would probably  indeed after this lawsuit after the briefing was completed in this court the employees of flying b have filed their own lawsuit in state court seeking to recover for exactly the same alleged conduct at issue here that law suits the course a matter of public record that the what the park school case for further here tells us that the jury thought the corporation suffered some corporate injury although it put nominal damages that one dollar well and i don't know what well actually the reasonable inference from the jury's finding of fifty thousand dollars in contract damages the reasonable inference is that they found no actual harm to the corporation under section one hundred eighty one because they would have at least  between fifty thousand as for not giving the thirty days notice correct but the jury could take the corporation suffered harm in that with an able profitably to perform its contract were not awarding damages beyond the thirty days notice because that's the economic strain of trying to perform the contract makes that insufficiently certain that the company would made a profit this panel but i started i don't know what the jury was thinking exactly and i don't know what the dress was thinking with that that will damage i'll take care of a jury instruction but i don't think the verdict of addresses issues of you know normally not more than single digit multiples of actual damages when you have actual damages i don't know if the supreme court has told us anything about least the b m w case does that in cases of low compensatory damages the ratio analysis is a little looser but you still have to have a real reasonable relationship between the actual harm and or the actual or potential harm and the  damages and so here they were the jury found no actual harm and therefore he still i think you have to have some read about that i'm thinking about here so you can address that i want to get it explicitly on the table and familiarity say that somebody who doesn't know anything about cases might have to just say well multiply your total compensatory fifty thousand and one dollars by by ten and you've got your ceiling but somebody who has some experience in familiarity with say ike million dollars is not a lot of money when you're talking about a major corporate defendant and  these are fairly small damages as these things go for major corporate defendant so the looser rule but why is there any reason we can't do that i think state farm does this one factor that we consider in trying to determine whether reasonable well this gets back to the point we talked about a very beginning which is that the fifty thousand dollars was not hoarded for discrimination jury rejected are we talking about harm to third parties or the state farm case that is one area where the state farm case when i think beyond b m w and the state farm case that you cannot look at a hypothetical claims or harm to others you look to the was interrupted prior to completion and in that case the court said well had your scheme been successful you would have damaged the plaintiff by five or six million dollars had you not been interrupted hot or shooting a gun into a coup into a crowd i don't i don't see why you consider the fifty it seems to me that the fifty is for breach of contract and the whole gist of the case is that scott crack fell apart because of racial discrimination at so even though it's not under the nineteen eighty one count it would be that just because the jury thought this would be a breach even if there was no racial aspect to it at all but it doesn't mean that the breach had nothing to do with any racial aspect it just means that the plaintiffs proved their entitlement to the fifty thousand and they more than proved so i don't see why you can't use the fifty rather than the dollar and why were were not or or the hypothetical shooting of shooting a gun into a crowd on the realized them that was part of the reason he erred with the potential harm the other thing he did was he looked at the potential harm to others they form yes or during the jury decided if the jury could have decided that the racist that at the pumps this really running that facility even though he's an independent contractor consultant type employee they used him to run the w as to reprehensible any and also it's the actual authorities do their first to be instructed to we review it but the jury gets to decide and we can't take all the facts most favorably to the unsuccessful defend al lawrence may have been negligent at best but he went and spoke to mr mr davis and that's one contradicted in the record i think davis himself testified that it wasn't just him who was making racist remarks everybody made racist remarks everybody with the first part of that not the second part i don't think was mr record is undisputed that mr lawrence went and talked to mr davis number one and number two after he talked to mr davis he heard no further complaints of it with the further evidence at trial that continued arith c test test well that again the timing is unclear as to whether the harassment occurred after the fourth complaint to mr fortunately the records a little bit vague on the time to be taken by the jury to mean that there your rights to submit twenty eight you letters follow the rules thank you a credit for the units and it's fairly easy to affirm fugitives even though their arguments that each step of the way up to somewhere between three hundred  five hundred at after five after the three hundred to five hundred thousand dollars range it really gets kind it tricky in light of b m w and state farm and help me with whatever justifications there are for going from the five hundred to the five million you have to consider potential harm and potential harm by definition is not the amount the jury awarded it's the amount of harm that was likely to occur from the perspective of the wrongdoer at the time of the rhine doing at the arriving doing arco did not know how much the jury was going to go forward when he didn't know that what that its conduct was potentially brewing as to find b this was a very very lucrative contract it was ground from day one to the very last day arco arco management was told that the result of terminating his contract without notice would would result in frankie have to have to lay off its entire workforce parquet tracts and that it would cost them substantial money way beyond fifty thousand dollars have trouble reconciling this with state farm the way this argument goes as i look at what they this is doing in arco isn't doing anything  while flying vs performing and i'm supposed to be my gosh any anyone could see this because flying the fork in the extended themselves by all these trucks and this could drive them drive off their their employees and room but the way i look at state farm i'm supposed to look at what harm actually occurred here so that i have some more concrete measures so dave farmer was very clear it did not change the existing law you have to look at actual harm you also have to look at potential harm and the question is what is what is potential harm it's it's not a it's as recognized in the exxon valdez case it's an indeterminate number punitive award and the actual or potential harm if all of these guys go to notice if they're going to notice it makes sense to look at the potential consequences of your actions at the time you break the law it can be if potential the coastline be up to five hundred fifty thousand economic damage so he's like and black and white he's saying as i read it that in his mind potential harm is the testimony of damage that was could have been four five or six million dollars as an answer my question over there the damage had occurred here in the exxon valdez case josh fine felt when considering the potential harm in exchange for the damages already occurred look beyond what the jury awarded and look to look to the district court's articulation of the potential harm was a higher amount than was ultimately awarded it was well all were saying i think we looked at a bunch of things and said whatever we look at it's too much five million and it broke in like they'll say probably high five maybe a little six figures and that i'm thinking should we do an approach kind of like that is that what you're urging that arco should look at it when the manager when when the beans company or rather flying be company is serving  its its corporate purposes delivering the fuel and it's got this racist who's bothering them every time they show up should arco look at it as of that time not at the time when the verdict comes in but as of that time and say we're looking here at a low seven figure closure if we if we don't nip this in the bud because when we look at what could happen to these people if they're driven away we see all these expensive tanker trucks we see the way the company is booked up to meet our needs we're probably looking at low seven figures absolutely i  workforce getting laid off and having to park their truck it safe to assume there's going to be a very substantial amount of lost profits and you don't know if that company is going to in one case be the victim of the discrimination may fully medicate its l s and other cases they may not be able to for whatever reason prove their damages with sufficient certainty and there's any number of scenarios what's important is the potential harm at the time of the awful conduct because that goes to the notice of the understand that it was driven by the fact that the olympic pipeline and exploded and and presumably both parties to the contract understood that there would come a day when the pipeline was reopened that they would no longer with in the past we lost more than but by destroying this relationship it was more than just eight months of damages we locked so your argument was that they would have been renewed even when the pipeline was r same purpose arco doesn't just fall from northern washington to seattle they haul from calcutta washington to california they all over the place state they used independent carriers beyond just for that route and the owners and i'm having trouble understanding something about the verdict there's a dog that didn't quark here and since you know all about the evidence and i don't want you to educate me on it here's where i look at the the jury bought the proposition that it was arcos fault five hundred fifty thousand for the real eight months i climbs out as opposed to the very speculative possibility of getting more business after the pipeline was restored five hundred fifty thousand it doesn't seem that out of line how did the jury manage to find against you on the five hundred fifty thousand how did you lose on that i think i don't i don't know what happened there i think that the records that were presented by the economist maybe the jury found that that that was more speculative than it could have been we felt it was sufficient to actually obviously thought it was to establish a reasonable degree of certainty that on evidence that actually flying v wasn't making any money its tax returns show they weren't making a profit or at absolutely not finding ever said we weren't harmed or we weren't making money they  absolutely absolutely to the whole question of betty vetting just to make sure everyone understands that at some point either just before or during the contract arco was purchased by british petroleum british petroleum had some sort of higher insurance requirements than arco had and wanted all the carriers to become vetted in other words to meet those higher requirements so arco sent notices to every independent carrier on the route except finding saying you absolutely unequivocally i want to address a few corrections in the record the the evidence for imputing punitive liability in this case have things to say about multiples of actual damages that nerves that and b and it's really not any any different if you read the theory the two cases the only the only thing that might have clarified a little bit doesn't apply here because it said or does apply here in a sense because it said when you have a very high compensatory word that already has a deterrent component in it then a lower ratio i