I can think of no justifiable reason why the plaintiff should receive punitive damages in a civil suit. I’m not against the idea of punitive damages at all, but their purpose is not compensation (that’s what compensatory damages are for) but punishment. Assuming a plaintiff is compensated for his loss, I think all punitive damages should go to the government, or charity.
But I’m willing to be convinced that society is somehow served by awarding punitive damages to plaintiffs.
Off the cuff, I’d agree with you.
I’ll be interested to see if anyone comes up with a reason for a change of mind.
It adds an extra incentive for people (and their lawyers) to take people/institutions/bussinesses that are behaving badly to court. Since taking someone to court is both expensive and time consuming, and in general its beneficial to society to have people who are behaving egregiously to be taken to court, it makes sense to provide the extra incentive.
Plus the money has to go somewhere. Since the state is the one trying the case, (and sometimes also the one being sued or the one doing the suing) giving the money to the state has its own set of problems. Certainly if the state is the defending, then having them pay themselves punitive damages kinda ruins the point.
Punitive damages don’t always go to the plaintiff, actually. Or at least not wholly.
For example in Indiana 75% of a punitive damages award goes to the Violent Crimes Victim’s Compensation fund.
Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467, (Supreme Court of Indiana, 2003)
Ohio’s Supreme Court has said that a portion of punitive damages can be allocated to other parties on a case-by-case basis to “acheive a social good.” Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 781 N.E.2d 121 (Ohio 2002).
I didn’t know that. Very interesting.
Just to expand on this a bit. I’d say one of the flaws in our legal system is how expensive and time consuming it can be, with the end result being that its a lot easier for people with money and resources to take advantage of it if they feel they’re being wronged. Awarding punitive damages to the plantif provides an (admittedly imperfect) solution to this, since if they believe their case is strong and the defendant is acting egregiously enough that punitive damages are likely, then the prospect of an extra reward above and beyond just the damages inflicted means it becomes possible for poor or middle class folks who are getting screwed to use the courts to defend themselves.
Also, why rewards in the millions get a lot of press, the average punitive reward in the US according to wikipedia is ~50,000$. And given that much of this is probably absorbed by lawyers, being awarded puniitive damages isn’t as much like winning the lotto as its sometimes made out to be.
It’s not just time consuming, it is a brutal experience. Being deposed is not a fun experience. It’s a massive disincentive to sue.
A classic case where punitives are deemed appropriate will involve deliberate actions by a corporation causing small harm to a large number of people. If the correct measure of compensation is anywhere up to $200 or $300, then there is no incentive to sue, and the corporation can get away with it, despite the deliberateness of the action.
Punitives are often also awarded to top up the compensatory damages by a jury. If the system works perfectly, and the person is awarded the exactly “corrrect” level of compensatory damages, in most situations they will still be undercompensated by 33%, as the case is likely to have been contingent and that cut goes to the attorney. But even in other situations, and this was indeed the original purpose of punitives, they reflect societal approbium and compensation for “outrageous” harms; we were given the example of a person being spat on in the street. While the compensatory damages will be low, punitives are awarded not only to express outrage, but also to compensate the victim for the humiliation costs etc, which are not reflected in pure compensatory awards.
People hear about the huge paydays the original case may bring but rarely do they hear what happens during appeals where the judgment is often reduced.
Take the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case:
Now consider how much her attorneys probably took (for work on the original case then the appeal). Not sure how much she went home with but not nearly what most people think she got.
How would you feel if you had to pay punitive damages directly to the smug bastard who took you to court?
Considering you (defendant “you”) injured the person in some fashion I say tough shit, suck it up.
Err…they’re punitive. Your not supposed to feel good about it.
Or perhaps thats your point?
Really? I thought paying punitive damages was supposed to be a pleasant experience. I was saying it probably sucks worse to not only have to pay out damages, but to the person who took you to court. I was mainly kidding. But as the funny people say, if you have to explain your joke, it’s not funny. 
They’re rarely awarded and as has been pointed out, appealed or flat out remanded by a judge. The public would be better served by automatically having their litigation expenses added to any judgment in my opinion.
What are the other choices? It goes to the government? Then there is an incentive to award. Think of punitive damages as a useless tax cut for the newly rich to stimulate the economy. The government would just waste it, and giving it to a charity is that social justice thing. That is being sarcastic. I tend to agree with you.
One of my very first threads here: Punitive damages should go to the state, not the plaintiff.
In a nutshell, we all decided that if punitive damages go anywhere else besides the plaintiff, the incentive to settle becomes too great, and defendants will never be given just punishment for wrongdoing.
But who is incentivized? The state doesn’t award punitive damages, the jury does. And they aren’t going to see any of it, no matter where it ends up.
I skipped a step, assuming it was understood. Thanks for pointing this out. Awarding punitive damages to the state is essentially having the jury award it to themselves, the jury being the representative of the people. Every dollar the jury awards to the state is potentially one less tax dollar they have to pay.
Clearly the jury should award the punitive damages to themselves, then. 
Just a little more of that to drive the point home,
One must wonder how many customers would have to get food poisoning before the company evaluate its practices?
Causing an injury to one person is an accident. Every person you injure in the same way after that shows a willful disregard to the consequences of your actions. Punitive damages for your Nth victim are justified because the only reason they are a victim is because of your willful inaction. If anything, after a pattern of injuries and their cause has been identified, and it can be shown that the defendant has taken no action to remedy the cause*, every subsequent plaintiff should receive punitive damages in increasing amounts with each new incident.
Despite numerous injuries to customers and multiple lawsuits McDonald’s didn’t take any of this seriously. McDonald’s had at least 700 opportunities to fix things and it wasn’t until they were on the hook for $2.7 million in punitive damages that they finally did something*.
Lawsuits shouldn’t be seen as just another cost of doing business, plaintiffs deserve to collect the punitive damages because they are.
CMC fnord!
What about just scrapping the whole idea of punitive damages and decide that if a company is doing something that bad, then criminal penalties need to be attached?