Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances. Punitive damages help the plaintiff to be made whole again.Another function of punitive damages articulated by supporters is law enforcement. Critics contend that allowing punitive damages to early plaintiffs may bankrupt defendants, thereby depriving later plaintiffs of compensatory damages.For these and other reasons, the critics see punitive damages as counterproductive to the public good. Before awarding punitive damages, the court must take several factors into account. Punitive Damages — damages in excess of those required to compensate the plaintiff for the wrong done, which are imposed in order to punish the defendant because of the particularly wanton or willful nature of his or her wrongdoing. O'Gilvie Minors v. United States 519 US 79 (1996). One of the most famous punitive damage cases in the United States occurred in 1992. In short, they offer a way to dish out extra punishment to the defendant for his or her conduct. Punitive damages are a way of punishing the defendant in a civil lawsuit and are based on the theory that the interests of society and the individual harmed can be met by imposing additional damages on the defendant. See e.g. In other states, the plaintiff must be awarded Proponents of punitive damages believe that this type of award serves a number of important societal functions, including retribution, deterrence, compensation, and law enforcement.Supporters of punitive damages contend that one function for such an award is to provide retribution to the victim of the defendant's reckless or wanton conduct. If the trial court believes that the jury award is excessive or unwarranted by the facts, it can remove punitive damages from the final judgment, or it can reduce the amount through a procedural process called remittitur.Since the 1980s, appellate courts have been called on to review punitive damage awards and to assess the procedural fairness involved in awarding such damages. President Daughety, Andrew F., and Jennifer F. Reinganum. The decision "sent a message" about punitive damages to the lower courts, strongly implying that they should do more to rein in juries that award excessive amounts. It is hoped that making the perpetrator pay a sum stretching beyond compensatory damages will deter him or her and others from committing similar misdeeds in the future.
The fact that the $2 million verdict was substantially greater than Alabama's $2,000 civil fine for deceptive trade practices was another ground for finding the punitive damages excessive, according to the Court.This decision had important consequences in civil litigation. In the wake of Though the decision reassured some in the insurance industry, the industry has continued to pursue "tort reform" legislation at the state and federal level. Those claims suggested that the company was aware of the dangers linked to the high temperatures of its coffee. Although a plaintiff may receive actual damages for the injuries suffered, many of the plaintiff's actual losses, including those involving intangible harm, are not compensable under the rules of compensatory damage liability. The vagueness in such terms as Critics also note that the deterrence rationale is undercut when defendants are insured against punitive damage awards. The fast-food chain refused, prompting Liebeck to sue. (See: All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. The master-servant rule is a legal guideline stating that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees. Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Since the 1970s, punitive damages have been criticized by U.S. business and insurance groups which allege that exorbitant punitive damage awards have driven up the cost of doing business.Punitive damages have been characterized as "quasi-criminal" because they stand halfway between the criminal and Punitive damages were first recognized in England in 1763 and were recognized by the American colonies almost immediately. Noting that proponents talk of retribution and deterrence, these critics argue that it is unfair to impose these "criminal" fines on defendants who do not have the usual safeguards of Critics also charge that the vagueness of standards for determining the defendant's liability for punitive damages and for calculating the award itself causes juries to make decisions based on passion, bias, and prejudice rather than on the law. Comparative negligence is a principle of tort law commonly used to assign blame and award monetary damages to injured parties in auto accidents. Punitive damages, also known as “exemplary damages,” are a monetary amount awarded to a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit for the purpose of punishing the defendant, or to deter him from engaging in the same conduct in the future. Courts have the power to reduce or throw out punitive damages. In Gore's case, the award was excessive because BMW's conduct did not demonstrate indifference or reckless disregard for the health and safety of others.
2003.