Touring the Punitive Damages Forest: A Proposed Roadmap
نویسنده
چکیده
Punitive damages have for years been one of the most hotly debated legal topics around the common law world. In recent years, however, the interest in this subject seems to be shared increasingly by continental scholars. The scholarly literature on punitive damages is immense. It covers almost every aspect of the punitive damages phenomenon, from almost every angle (doctrinal, conceptual, philosophical, political, economic, historical, empirical, constitutional, and comparative). Surprisingly, however, there has been little academic effort to systematically organize the punitive damages field. What seems to be especially lacking is a roadmap which would be able to encapsulate the various aspects of the problem and to demonstrate the connection – or lack thereof – between these aspects. In this article, the author aims to offer the reader such a roadmap. The starting point is the author’s claim that forming an opinion on whether or not a doctrine of punitive damages may ever be justified and, if so, in which form, requires the posing and answering of a series of interrelated – but distinct – questions. The present article is an endeavor to present these questions and to discuss possible answers to them. It thus offers both continental and common law lawyers a draft roadmap, which might be of assistance to anyone willing to become more acquainted with, and more involved in, the punitive damages debate.
منابع مشابه
The “monstrous Heresy” of Punitive Damages: a Comparison to the Death Penalty and Suggestions for Reform
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................854 I. THEORIES AND CRITIQUES OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ........................857 A. The History and Theories of Punitive Damages Awards ......... 857 B. Critiques of Punitive Damages ........................................... 860 II. THE SUPREME COURT’S PUNITIVE DAMAGES JURISPRUDENCE .......863 III....
متن کاملCompensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: is bifurcation necessary?
Critics of the civil jury have proposed several procedural reforms to address the concern that damage awards are capricious and unpredictable. One such reform is the bifurcation or separation of various phases of a trial that involves multiple claims for damages. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damages phases of a civil tort trial...
متن کاملIntegrating Punishmentand Efficiency Concerns in Punitive Damages for Reckless Disregard of Risks to Others
Punitive damages deter and punish. Using a social welfare function that incorporates both economic efficiency and a desire for retribution, this paper explores the effects of punitive damages in situations of reckless disregard that might be viewed as outrageous. If the defendant was making a rational decision that reflected all of social costs, any level of punitive damages lowers efficiency. ...
متن کاملEnvironmental Citizen Suits with Pigovian Punitive Damages
Federal environmental laws encourage private citizens to act like "private attorney generals" and to sue a firm. This citizen group competes over the rewards of levels of regulation and enforcement. The firm can reduce its output to curtail the likelihood of losing the contest. This paper explores whether one can combine citizen suits with Pigovian punitive damages to equate private and social ...
متن کاملPunitive Damages: How Judges and Juries Perform
A substantial recent literature has documented the inability of jurors to make sound decisions with respect to punitive damages, particularly for health, safety, and environmental torts. Included in this literature are experimental studies documenting the better performance of judges than jurors for the same case scenarios. Recent research by Eisenberg et al. (2002) has suggested, however, that...
متن کامل