1.       Sandy is entitled to recover for her lost earning capacity until she recovers from her injury or would have retired.  She was earning around $100,000 a year, so her best recovery would be $100,000 a year until she would most likely retire, which we can assume is age 65.  Since she was injured at age 30, it would amount to $3.5 million ($100,000 x 35).

          A problem for Sandy is that according to the facts, most stunt people have to stop that line of work at around age 40.  Although it's impossible to predict the future, we need to make a realistic assessment of what kind of job someone will hold and how long she is actually going to work at that job.  Here, the most realistic view is that she would have done stunts and made $100,000 a year for 10 additional years.  She should thus be awarded $1 million for these ten years.

          However, Sandy she has a duty to mitigate her damages, since she is healthy enough to do most other types of work.  In the employment situation (see Parker case) her damages must be reduced by any amount that the employer proves she earned or reasonably could have earned by taking comparable employment.  "Comparable" employment must not be different or inferior.  The burden of proof will be on the doctor. 

          Although Parker was a contract case, the duty to mitigate also applies to torts (see Garcia case).  It is possible a court might not apply the specific Parker standard and instead apply the general requirement that mitigation must be "reasonable," but the result would be similar.

          The doctor will easily be able to prove that Sandy has been earning $25,000 a year as a singer, and it seems likely that she will be able to continue until retirement.  This amount would have to be deducted from her award, giving her $750,000 until age 40. [NOTE to students: although this answer analyzes the issue of "singing earnings" in terms of mitigation, it is equally valid to analyze it as reduced earning capacity, with the same result: the difference between $100,000 as a stunt person and $25,000 as a singer is $75,000 a year)].

          The doctor could also try to prove that she could have earned $50,000 a year as an extra or actor, which she is physically able to do.  Under the Parker case, the question is whether that occupation is different or inferior.  Doing stunts may be exciting and challenging, but it is also quite anonymous.  Most people would probably prefer to be actors, even if they appear in minor roles.  So acting is probably not inferior.  And stunt people are in fact acting in a sense, so it is not that terribly different.  Although there is room for disagreement, I would conclude that acting is comparable to doing stunts and that she could and should have obtained such work.  It is likely that $50,000 per year will be deducted in mitigation. Thus, the most likely outcome is that Sandy will be awarded $100,000 minus $50,000 a year (=$50,000) for 10 years (=$500,000) for her reduced earning capacity until age 40.

          What about her lost earning capacity after age 40?  The facts suggest that almost all stunt people must retire at age 40 and that they find other work, usually as actors and extras.  Because Sandy can walk normally, and because most jobs do not require doing dangerous stunts, it appears that she has the same earning capacity after age 40 as she did before the malpractice, so she is not entitled to damages after this time.

          Finally, because the lost earnings payments involve amounts she is entitled to receive in the future, they will have to be reduced to present value.  A court might also consider possible raises and promotions, if justified by the facts.

2.       For a preliminary injunction to be valid, the requirements are (1) an inadequate remedy at law; (2) irreparable harm; (3) balancing that favors the moving party; and (4) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.  There is a traditional maxim that equity will not enjoin a defamation, but today courts would go through the analysis, although they will take free speech values into account in the process.

          As to (1), courts consider factors like recurrent invasions of an interest (it is possible that Sandy will continue picketing even if she has to pay damages), difficulty in calculating damages (defamation damages will be hard to calculate because it's hard to say how many clients Larry lost), and multiplicity of lawsuits (if she keeps picketing, Larry will have to sue her for damages every few years).  The legal remedy appears inadequate.

          As to (2), irreparable harm is usually defined as great harm.  Here, the harm to Larry is that he is losing clients, and that certainly qualifies as great harm. 

          As to (3), the benefit to Larry, as noted above, is great.  But the burden on Sandy, while it is trivial in terms of money, involves the constitutional right to free speech.  Moreover, an injunction will operate as a prior restraint, which makes the scales weigh even more heavily in favor of Sandy. 

          Courts are more likely to enjoin speech if the motivation seems to be to harass someone, rather than to express an opinion.  As far as we can tell, however, Sandy honestly believes Larry was bribed. 

          Moreover, if there is to be an injunction against a first amendment activity, it should be narrowly tailored so that it does not burden legitimate activity.  Here, the injunction forbids "all picketing activities outside lawyer Larry's office."  It does no specify defamatory picketing and therefore is probably too broad.

          Regarding (4), it does seem that Larry is substantially likely to prevail.  It is a crime to take bribes and, if true, Larry would lose his license to practice law.  Sandy seems to have no evidence to support her accusation, so most likely Larry would prevail on the merits.  But because he loses on the balancing, the injunction was not properly granted.

 
3.       For this question we assume that the injunction was invalid (probably due to being unconstitutional).  The rule is that someone subject to an invalid order or injunction can still be held in criminal contempt (with some limited exceptions), but that a civil contempt citation is reversed (Walker v. Birmingham case).

          So, was the contempt citation in this case criminal or civil?  One criterion is that if an order is for the benefit of a party in litigation before the court, violation of that order usually is considered civil contempt.  Here, the injunction was for the benefit of Larry and was issued in a civil case that he had filed against Sandy. 

          Another consideration is that criminal contempt usually involves a fixed jail term or a fixed fine and aims to punish for past violations of an order.  Civil contempt usually involves jail terms or amounts of money that increase as the contempt continues, and it aims to force future compliance with an order.  Here, the longer that Sandy pickets, the more money she will have to pay, and the order aims to ensure future compliance. 

          Both factors suggest that the contempt citation was civil.  That being the case, it will be reversed if the underlying order or injunction was invalid.  Sandy will not have to pay the $200, or if she has paid it, is entitled to have it reimbursed.