Oops. Right you are. I read the post and not the actual filing. Footnote 4, in fact, specifically acknowledges that they reduced the award request by the amount of money that Amy has already received from other pedophiles.
My mistake.
Hey no prob. The lawyer’s post was misleading.
To my mind, the concern is that this legal case leads to a situation in which you get the adoption of one common-law tort principle (joint & several liability) but without other common-law principles, such as a requirement that the defendant “proximately caused” the harm. I realize that this is driven by the statute, but it isn’t a good result.
This leads to unbalanced awards - such as some person downloading a pic being responsible in law for the full damages of a life destroyed by sexual abuse.
This result is only possible because kiddie porn users are so highly disliked. But in other contexts, it would be seen as outrageous. Hence, bad facts driving bad law.
I was totally on her side until I read that (although I guess he’s correct, based on the statute).
It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean - read on. 