Remedies are among the more visible actions by which judges express their views about ethical norms. Notice that in Case 11-4 the California Supreme Court could conceivably have affirmed the trial...

Remedies are among the more visible actions by which judges express their views about ethical norms. Notice that in Case 11-4 the California Supreme Court could conceivably have affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Parker and then decided to reduce the damages. The court, however, was disturbed enough by the harm caused by Twentieth Century Fox that it affirmed what was at that time a substantial damage award. Please refer to Case 11-4 and consider the following questions:

 1. Decide what damage award each of the four primary ethical norms outlined in Chapter 1 compels in Case 11-4 and present a rationale for why that norm compels that particular damage award. You are not looking for a specific number here. Instead, you are asking the question, “Which of these norms propel the damage award higher and which argue for minimal damages?” Clue: Remember that one form of ethical reasoning focuses on the consequences of following an ethical norm in a particular situation. For instance, what would be the impact on efficiency if the damage award were even higher than that affirmed by the court?

 2. If you were the judge in Case 11-4, what argument would you make in defending the size of the damages awarded by the trial court? Clue: Use ethical reasoning to support your desired remedy.