Should Punitive Damages Go to the State

[Bells]

If I do that, then I think the tribe should get something, too!



Interesting that you should mention that, yet not recognize that the state (the society) is, in fact, one of the victims! A person or company doing something injurious to one person is a danger to the entire society and should be punished for subjecting that society to dangers.

So the state (society) should get the punitive damages, since the one victim has already been paid for all of his/her injuries, including pain and suffering.

Baron Max

Yes, but if the harm is directed at you personally, you should be the one who receives the punitive damages, not the State. The debt (fine) should be paid to you as the individual, since it is you, the individual, who has suffered harm or damage from their action. Not the State.

 

[Learned Hand]

In Washington DC, a man (a municipal judge, to everyone's amazement) filed a sixty million dollar lawsuit against a dry-cleaning establishment for misplacing his trousers. Is that frivolous enough fer ya?

Uhhh, yah. That's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Learned Hand]

However there is a dire need for tort reform to reduce the sheer volume of frivolous lawsuits (for example the Judge with the lost pants). People now seem to view the courts as a money making machine, when it is not. Frivolous lawsuits are costly, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of tying up the system, sometimes for years.

In several states, such as my own, we have a frivolous lawsuit statute which awards the defendant to a ridiculous claim all of his costs and attorney fees in having to defend the action. The court could also impose additional sanctions that, in its equitable discretion, deems fit to employ.

I am certainly not an advocate of filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to jackpot the jury system. But punitive damages and frivolity are certainly not synonymous. One does not go hand in hand with the other.

 

[madanthonywayne]

While the claimant is awarded damages, the "fine" should be paid to them in that the wrongdoer is then seen to have been punished. This is done in the hope that the wrongdoer will have learned from their mistake and has to physically pay the claimant the fine.

The wrongdoer is punished no matter who gets the check. I get pissed off every time I hear of some bogus lawsuit where their is an award of 100 million dollars in punitive damages.

Remember those lawyers in the tobbaco settlement? Those guys ended up earning like a million dollars an hour or some other similarly obscene amount. For what? Extortion. What did the public get out of it? Those annoying "Truth" anti-tobacco ads. That, and higher prices on cigarettes.

And Asbestos. The whole asbestos deal was overblown and morphed into pure extortion. There is almost no risk associated with asbestos tile. Yet an untold number of companies with only the most indirect of connections to asbestos were sued into bankrupsy by greedy lawyers. Hell, I've heard the World Trade Center wouldn't have collapsed if the planned asbestos had been installed.

 

[Learned Hand]

If I do that, then I think the tribe should get something, too!



Interesting that you should mention that, yet not recognize that the state (the society) is, in fact, one of the victims! A person or company doing something injurious to one person is a danger to the entire society and should be punished for subjecting that society to dangers.

So the state (society) should get the punitive damages, since the one victim has already been paid for all of his/her injuries, including pain and suffering.

Baron Max

In effect, therefore, the civil justice system is the punishing entity. But why should the state itself reap the benefits of the punitive damage award when it has paid absolutely nothing towards the suit initiated by the poor guy being blacklisted by his union (or similar companies) as a "rabble rouser," or the mom and pop shops that are victims of corporate racketeering?

 

[Learned Hand]

The wrongdoer is punished no matter who gets the check. I get pissed off every time I hear of some bogus lawsuit where their is an award of 100 million dollars in punitive damages.

And Asbestos. The whole asbestos deal was overblown and morphed into pure extortion. There is almost no risk associated with asbestos tile. Yet an untold number of companies with only the most indirect of connections to asbestos were sued into bankrupsy by greedy lawyers. Hell, I've heard the World Trade Center wouldn't have collapsed if the planned asbestos had been installed.

Yes, the wrongdoer is punished regardless of who gets the check. But if the victim does not get the check, why would any victim even bother with the cost and increased burden of proof in trying to obtain punitive damages? The state certainly wouldn't have legal standing to sue in your place. It's an injury to a private civil right, and is at most quasi-criminal. A prosecutor cannot charge a person or company for libel or slander. Thus, in your view, Walmart can go around using a cost benefit approach to monopolizing business by slamming some small competitor and only have to pay nickles & dimes in comparison to substantially increased gross revenue. Is that justice?

As for asbestos tile. Sure, laying it there's generally no problem. But what about those poor suckers who went in with hammer & chisel (or jackhammer) to remove it and released millions of microscopic asbestos fibers into the air that not only they breathed, but bystanders also inhaled. Asbestos fibers are never removed from the human body, and are virtually indestructible. They cause asbestosis, cancer, and mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the pleura which occurs only in asbestos exposure cases). As in tobacco, manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products knew for years of the high correlation of lung diseases in asbestos handlers in comparison to the general public, but openly lied to keep a good thing going as long as possible. It's just a shame that they could seek US bankruptcy protection.

 

[Bells]

In several states, such as my own, we have a frivolous lawsuit statute which awards the defendant to a ridiculous claim all of his costs and attorney fees in having to defend the action. The court could also impose additional sanctions that, in its equitable discretion, deems fit to employ.

I am certainly not an advocate of filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to jackpot the jury system. But punitive damages and frivolity are certainly not synonymous. One does not go hand in hand with the other.

I did not say it did. My comments were made in reply to the Judge who filed the suit against his drycleaner for the loss of his pants.

The wrongdoer is punished no matter who gets the check. I get pissed off every time I hear of some bogus lawsuit where their is an award of 100 million dollars in punitive damages.

In many instances, the wrongdoer is not punished at all. Large corporations, for example, are insured and any successful lawsuits against them is paid by the insurance company.

Punitive damages is meant to be paid by the wrongdoer to the victim, with the idea that the wrongdoer pays a debt directly to said victim. The State has no involvement in such a case. Why should the State be awarded "$100 million" in punitive damages when it (the State) has suffered no harm whatsoever and is not a claimant? It is a civil matter between two non-State parties.

 

[Bells]

And Asbestos. The whole asbestos deal was overblown and morphed into pure extortion. There is almost no risk associated with asbestos tile. Yet an untold number of companies with only the most indirect of connections to asbestos were sued into bankrupsy by greedy lawyers. Hell, I've heard the World Trade Center wouldn't have collapsed if the planned asbestos had been installed.

I had a neighbour who died of mesothelioma, and after witnessing what he went through, I do not see "the whole asbestos deal" as being overblown.

Having "almost no risk" is not the same as there being no risk whatsoever. There was a risk and those who knew said nothing, allowing the victims to work unprotected.

 

[Baron Max]

In effect, therefore, the civil justice system is the punishing entity. But why should the state itself reap the benefits of the punitive damage award when it has paid absolutely nothing towards the suit initiated by the poor guy ...?

The state has paid a tremendous amount of money for all lawsuits! The state pays the judges, pays rent on the courthouse, pays bailiffs, pays the court reporters, pays for the jurors time, pays for parking fees, pays electric bills to provide a/c and heat in the court rooms, ......, and the list goes on and on!

No, the state should get the punitive damages.

Baron Max

 

[cosmictraveler]

But in most lawsuits it is the victim or their family that sues over the carelessness of others that goes to court not the state suing someone. The state usually just fines people for doing wrong. The fines imposed are the only thing the state should get.

 

[Learned Hand]

The state has paid a tremendous amount of money for all lawsuits! The state pays the judges, pays rent on the courthouse, pays bailiffs, pays the court reporters, pays for the jurors time, pays for parking fees, pays electric bills to provide a/c and heat in the court rooms, ......, and the list goes on and on!

No, the state should get the punitive damages.

Baron Max

Well heck Baron Max, let's just forget trials. Since the state pays for the judicial system to protect your rights, maybe the state should pay for every person injured in a car wreck, or malpractice, or defective product and give them a free meal ticket. I mean, geez, it's not like the client has to pay filing fees, expert witness fees, court reporter fees, document reproduction costs, mailing costs, appellate fees.

 

[Baron Max]

Well heck Baron Max, let's just forget trials. Since the state pays for the judicial system to protect your rights, maybe the state should pay for every person injured in a car wreck, or malpractice, or defective product and give them a free meal ticket. I mean, geez, it's not like the client has to pay filing fees, expert witness fees, court reporter fees, document reproduction costs, mailing costs, appellate fees.

Huh?

Did you read my post as a response to the other person's post?

Baron Max

 

[madanthonywayne]

I had a neighbour who died of mesothelioma, and after witnessing what he went through, I do not see "the whole asbestos deal" as being overblown.

Having "almost no risk" is not the same as there being no risk whatsoever. There was a risk and those who knew said nothing, allowing the victims to work unprotected.

Your neighboor's family certainly has a legitimate claim. But in the US, 90% of the lawsuits filed are by people with no health problems whatsoever. They simply claim some exposure to asbestos and win millions on that basis. Lawyers round of hundreds of these "victims" and extort billions out of companies with only the most peripheral connection to asbestos. This costs our economy dearly, drives companies into bankrupsy, and clogs the system so that those with legitimate claims such as your neighboor can't get justice.

Frivolous asbestos litigation is crippling our judicial system and large swaths of our economy. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of asbestos lawsuits have been filed, 8,400 companies are defending themselves, 75 companies have been bankrupted by a flood of frivolous claims, tens of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs, and retirement savings have been eviscerated.

Worse, an estimated 90% of these cases are filed people who aren't even sick, but merely claim some exposure to asbestos with no symptoms. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat...nst-Asbestos-Lawsuit-Abuse-Gains-Momentum.htm

 

[Learned Hand]

But in the US, 90% of the lawsuits filed are by people with no health problems whatsoever. They simply claim some exposure to asbestos and win millions on that basis. Lawyers round of hundreds of these "victims" and extort billions out of companies with only the most peripheral connection to asbestos. This costs our economy dearly, drives companies into bankrupsy, and clogs the system so that those with legitimate claims such as your neighboor can't get justice.

Mmmmm, not so sure about that 90%. Where did you get that figure? If there are no damages, but only the potential for future damage, there generally is not a claim upon which any relief can be granted, and the action would be dismissed on that basis.

An asbestos attorney has a duty to go after every available connection. In my state, for example, the jury must analyze comparative fault of all parties -- even peripheral ones. If you don't include them on the complaint, you are malpracticing your client (assuming damages). Most of these peripheral companies settle for peanuts.

Moreover, since the skunk came out on asbestos back in the late 70s, asbestos is rarely used today. Hence, most of the people affected by asbestos are in their 60s, 70s, and 80s (it taking in some instances more than 20-30 years for meso & cancers to develop). Eventually, asbestos litigation will dissipate. Nevertheless, if you harm, you should pay, regardless of how that effects the economy.

If you harm, and know you're harming, and fail to warn when you have knowledge of harm, you should be assessed punitive damages. Think about it. If you make more money keeping your mouth shut, you should be punished and deterred from doing it again -- to the point of shutting down your business.