|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Punitive damages
i'm sure many of you heard about that woman who got something like 250 mil from a lawsuit against a drug company. an article i was reading said that about 90% of that number was punitive damages, besides the fact that that seems fairly high, does anyone think that punitive damages should be donated/used for some sort of local/foreign aid? the company's getting punished wherever the money goes, and i'm not sure that little old lady needs all of it.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
Thats not necessarily a bad idea. What i like most is you seem to understand that against large companies, the punitive damages need to be big enough to make the behavior that we're trying to curb -EV.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
Foreign aid, no. Some have proposed giving a % of pun. damages to charity or the state or something else. better than caps I guess. I think the money should go to the lawyers tho. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
yeah on second thought bringing that much money out of the country wouldn't be the best idea. but local aid though...
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
The tort law system is one method of regulating dangerous behavior by bad actors. Direct governmental regulation, criminal law for example, is another. Both have their plusses and minuses.
If you go with the tort law system, however, it is essential that the plaintiff's lawyers and the plaintiffs get at least some of the award above and beyond actual damages (medical + pain and suffering). If not, there is no incentive for the lawyer and plaintiff to play their proper role in this system of regulation. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
[ QUOTE ]
If not, there is no incentive for the lawyer and plaintiff to play their proper role in this system of regulation. [/ QUOTE ] And there's also a loss of the lottery mentality, such as this person getting however many millions because of chance. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
State law capped that award at about 26 million so the point is moot.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
Should be just like a fine and go to the gubmint.
A plantiff should be made whole - actual loss, pain and suffering, opportunity cost, having to wear a suit to court, whatever - but punitive damages shouldn't go to the plantiff. Not really important whether some ancient tradition set tort or civil law apart from criminal law in this case. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
[ QUOTE ]
Should be just like a fine and go to the gubmint. A plantiff should be made whole - actual loss, pain and suffering, opportunity cost, having to wear a suit to court, whatever - but punitive damages shouldn't go to the plantiff. Not really important whether some ancient tradition set tort or civil law apart from criminal law in this case. [/ QUOTE ] See Benman above: If you go with the tort law system, however, it is essential that the plaintiff's lawyers and the plaintiffs get at least some of the award above and beyond actual damages (medical + pain and suffering). If not, there is no incentive for the lawyer and plaintiff to play their proper role in this system of regulation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Punitive damages
Why?
If you do something that costs me a bunch of money, am I not motivated to sue to get that money? If pain, to be compensated for the pain? If opportunity cost, to be compensated for that? That doesn't mean awards can't be big. If you get your legs broken off or something, that is a lot of pain, suffering, loss of future income, etc.. Lawyers fees should still come off the defendent if they lose. The punitive damages themselves, though, should go somewhere else. Maybe there really shouldn't be punitive damages in civil court. |
|
|