Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoboruWataya | Hacker News Reader

It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.

View on HN

Ok, we've taken damages out of the title above.

Since this is mostly just a terminological issue, I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700866.

Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.

Damages is a legal term of art that implies a finding of fault in a judicial proceeding and a corresponding award by the court/arbitrator/etc. This is not that: no fault/guilt need be admitted (though it was here). It's just a contract to accept a certain amount of money and in exchange to not proceed with a lawsuit.

It's also an English word that can be used for the same kind of thing without the law being involved at all.

And in situations where the law isn't involved, that's great. Here, though, it is.

Talking about damages being paid, as the headline does, is especially indicative of the legal context.

Yeah, context is key here... Damages can also mean physical bodily harm. By GP's reasoning, we could interpret the article as saying someone was medically wounded and claim that to be a correct interpretation because it's one of the many meanings depending on context.

I see people make this absurd argument applied to various subjects constantly on HN.

So a guy hits a triple, should I then say, "wow that guy hit a home run" because in business meetings "hitting a home run" means "doing a good job".

Or can we agree that when talking about baseball we probably shouldn't use the term home run to mean good job because that would be incorrect in this context specific setting.

Well, using the word damages in the general sense but in relation to a legal case is the same thing as calling a triple a home run. It's wrong, because the context makes it wrong.

This isn't a euphemism, though. In both situations, the loser is paying for damages they caused to the other party. It's the same thing, just settled out of court instead of being ordered by the court.

While I agree it is a little misleading, websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words. If they said "Twitter 'troll' settles to pay six-figure sum in damages" Then it would have been fine, with no confusion.

A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology. Both the BBC headline and the amended one above encourage a partisan interpretation of the case that is not clearly supported by the given facts, sparse as they are.

1) The word "troll," for example. That invokes a specific meaning of an individual who deliberately provokes strife for the sake of it. A heated disagreement may be deeply unpleasant for one or both parties, but we do not normally understand the actions of either party to be "trolling."

2) The word "damages" is generally taken to mean compensation decided by a judge or jury following a verdict. It appears that this was an out of court settlement without admission of liability. There can be many reasons apart from genuine liability for which a party may opt to settle.

A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology.

I don't know anything about UK law and editorial standards. However, I would always expect a news outlet targeting the general public to use the common meanings of words, instead of abiding by the nuanced jargon of whatever field they are covering. It's the same reason I don't get mad when newspapers use the word hacker to mean criminal.

No, we know the difference between damages and settling.

It's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages.

If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it okay?

How about "settle to pay for the damages caused?"

I love being pedantic as much as the next guy, but the government doesn't get to define what words mean.

Yes, both of those would correct the default interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as something paid for isn't the same as damages paid. You pay money, you don't pay for money. On the other hand, if you pay for the consequences of your actions, that's different than "paying [read: suffering] the consequences."

Where did government defining things come into play? That seems to be a strawman you constructed:

> websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words

No, they don't. They're still misleading if they use words misleadingly.

Just before the part you quoted I said I agreed it was misleading. All I'm saying is that the word damages doesn't have to match the legal definition.

Is it? It seems like “damages” is more of an umbrella term for the value of the harm caused. When I write “your client’s breach of contract resulted in my client suffering damages of $X” no one (OC or layperson) would be under the false impression a court or a jury has awarded my client a judgment for $X.

In England, part 36 uses the term damages to refer to the monetary value of the settlement. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...

Yes, where the context is a settlement offer. You'll notice it refers to a "claim for damages", i.e. the claim that would be made in court, but will not be if settled instead.

In the headline, on the other hand, there's no context at all to suggest a settlement, which is why the commenter called it misleading.

If you look up the many settlements made by newspapers in the UK concerning hacking phones etc you will see 'damages'. To give one example:

"Rather than fight the claims against the Sun in court, when they would have been set out in more detail in front of a judge, Murdoch’s company has instead agreed to pay substantial damages to settle the case. "

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jun/10/sun-publisher-...

Yes, "agreed...to settle the case" tells us what's going on there. Without such language, we'd be left with the default understanding. As in the headline.

There are no damages... because they settled.

If it’s expensive, I imagine lawyers on both sides try to encourage going to court!

One small-town lawyer will go broke but two small-town lawyers can make a fortune.

No. I’ve never seen that term used except for a court ordered payment. Anything else is called a “settlement,” or “settled for $x” or even more explicitly “settled out of court for $x”

In England it is used in the context of a settlement. E.g. in part 36 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...

That page refers to claims of damages, not actual damages (as decided by a court). It makes sense that the settlement is in relation to the damage the plaintiff claims (i.e. what they would have sued for in court).

Those are settlements, not damages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com