Punitive damages

[Gilligan]

I understand the purpose of punitive damages awarded in civil cases, but not why they are given to the defendant. For example: you are injured by some act of company X. You incur losses of, let's say $20,000 - medical bills, lost work, whatever. You win your case and collect this, and another $20,000 for pain and suffering. You have now recovered your damages. But you also sue for 10 million in punitive damages. To punish the company, to deter the type of act that caused your injury in the first place. That's fine, the company should be punished. But why should you collect that money? Isn't a punitive award the equivalent of a fine? Shouldn't that fine be paid to the state?

[Rich Barr]

Why SHOULD it be paid to the state? The plaintiff is the one who's been injured/wronged--that's why they get the money.

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

[tracer]

Rich: Because the plaintiff has already gotten remuneration in the form of his original claim, his pain-and-suffering award, and (hopefully) coverage of his court costs and legal fees by the defendant.

Someone else posted in another thread that punitive damages ought to be awarded not to the plaintiff (or to the government), but to a charity of the plaintiff's choosing. That sounds like a good idea. I'd also stipulate that the plaintiff's attorneys should get zero (0) percent of these punitive damage awards, if I was makin' up this policy.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Gilligan]

I must have skipped that other thread, tracer, which one was it? As far as the award going to charity, sounds good but could cause problems if the plaintiff's charity was stated before that award was decided. It would influence the jury, who might decide the amount based on who would receive it. It should be decided on the degree of punishment deserved by the defendant.

[Rich Barr]

tracer: [[Rich: Because the plaintiff has already gotten remuneration in the form of his original claim, his pain-and-suffering award, and (hopefully) coverage of his court costs and legal fees by the defendant.]]

Awarding legal costs to the winner is not the norm in US law. Further, there is no award for the very necessity of resorting to legal proceedings to recover damages--this is a major undertaking, which is often very nerve-wracking, and which takes a very long time.

[[Someone else posted in another thread that punitive damages ought to be awarded not to the plaintiff (or to the government), but to a charity of the plaintiff's choosing.]]

I don't buy that, either. I fail to see how forced charitable contributions are an improvement over the state gettings its greedy little hands on the award. I'm always very wary of people who propose to do "good" with other people's money.

[[I'd also stipulate that the plaintiff's attorneys should get zero (0) percent of these punitive damage awards, if I was makin' up this policy.]]

That's fine, as long as you understand that a lot of claims will never be pressed in that case--the injured parties won't have enough actual damages to get attorneys to take the case on contingency, and won't have enough money to just pay an attorney to represent them. Real boon for defendents, that--especially for corporations who routinely calculate "acceptable" losses when marketing less-than-safe items. (Why do you suppose a lot of Republicans support suppressing punitive damages in the first place?)

Hey, maybe we could use the punitive damages to fund a new government agency that would make sure plaintiffs who couldn't otherwise sue have representation! The epitome of social policy--a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't really exist, which "solution" accomplishes nothing but the creation of more bureacracy. Write to your Congresscritters....

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl