Sua:
I mostly agree with you–except what else would you have them do in an attempt to handle mass tort litigation?
Gadarene, I’m not saying that we should ban settlements, but courts now routinely engage in “arm-twisting” to try to get the parties to settle, without much regard to whether the defendant actually bears any liability to the plaintiff.
And the arm-twisting isn’t just verbal pressure. Courts do things like refuse to grant continuances, strike witnesses and evidence, etc., all in order to make it harder to one party or the other to proceed to trial.
Sua
I have always wondered why punitive damages go to the plaintiff. Presumably, the plaintiff has been fully compensated for the tort by the awarding of actual damages (out-of-pocket and non-economic), pain and suffering, etc. At this point, the plaintiff has been made whole (in theory, anyway. It’s not like any amount of money will completely make up for the loss of a leg, but in principle, the plaintiff has been appropriately compensated).
So the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant for his conduct. In essense, punitive damages are a fine. What public good is served by awarding these moneys to the plaintiff? Shouldn’t punitive damages be paid to the jurisdiction which assesed the damages?
By removing the punitive damages from the award to the plaintiff, to some degree this removes the financial incentive to bring a frivolous lawsuit. I have always been suspicious of the high-minded motives expressed by those who sue for 1 dollar actual damages and 100 million punitive damages.
Of course, it also to some degree may lessen the financial incentive for an attorney to take on a legitimate case. But we’re am talking theory, here, not practice.
Do some jurisdictions award/take punitive damages on this basis?
Brothercadfael, the reason is simple: if the plaintiff did not get the punitive damages, there would be no incentive to seek punitive damages. Both a higher level of proof and, often, additional evidence (showing a pattern of conduct, etc.) is needed to be entitled to punitives. It costs money to collect, analyze and present that evidence and reach that higher burden of proof.
And if plaintiffs stopped seeking punitives, the social goods of deterrence and retribution would be lost.
That’s the theory and the practice.
Sua