Punitive damages

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Really the only place it could go is to the government.


[/ QUOTE ]

A terrible, terrible idea. We don't want to create incentives for the govt-paid judges to uphold ludicrous judgments.

natedogg

[send_the_msg]

perhaps there is a better penalty that doesn't involve direct monetary fines?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps there is a better penalty that doesn't involve direct monetary fines?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with monetary fines? They work well, they accomplish the goal of cowing businesses into being careful about consumer safety.

The problme with the vioxx case is not the punitive damages (which are going to be reduced because they exceeded the legal limit anyway). As I noted, one of the jurors admitted he didn't even understand anything the lawyers were talking about. The juror was an idiot, and the case was without merit. The man died from a cause that has not even been linked to Vioxx!

If Merck had actually acted negligently, then a huge punitive damages award would be appropriate. A perfect example of this was the much vilified McDonald's coffee case. The punitive damages were if anything mild.

natedogg

[send_the_msg]

i guess i'm just wondering how such a huge amount of money (although you say it's being reduced) can be awarded to some lady. just seems like the money could be better spent. as for the idea of changing it, it just seemed like many people were in disagreement where the money could go, so perhaps it's not the best penalty.

[microbet]

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.

[microbet]

Buh, I don't think that is a difficult problem and could be addressed.

Do judges in criminal cases tend to give HUGE fines because the money is going to the government?

Why should punitive damages go to the plantiff?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"that woman who got something"

[/ QUOTE ]
So far, I doubt she's received anything. Monster punitive damages awards get a lot of publicity, but they are routinely appealed and almost as routinely gutted on appeal. The publicity surrounds the jury's verdict at trial. The defendant corporation then posts a bond to secure the award so that they can keep the dough while it's up on appeal. Two or three years later, the appellate court vacates the whole award unless the plainitff agree to accept a greatly reduced award, through an order known as "remittur." This grabs fewer headlines.