I am interested. Ping me when it's out.
Also, so far as capping punitive damage awards, there would have to be some formula for determining both the level and/or extent of damage, the intent to damage and/or the level of negligence, the value of the object lost; and the means of the offender. (And probably a few things I've overlooked.)
If I run over your cat, then we have: (1) a dead cat is pretty extensive for the cat, but no so extensive for the living human; (2) Big difference if I targeted that cat, was ignorantly on my cell phone, or was distracted by traffic; (3) Cat's generally range from free to a couple hundred bucks, but sometimes they're loved; (4) and let's say I'm a middle class kind of guy so there's not much I can afford, and, therefore, a thousand bucks (a 50th of a middle class income) will teach me a big lesson. Put those all on a continuum and multiply and you come up with some kind of numerical cap.
Is that what you're recommending?
In terms of med-mal, I've always thought some kind of arbitration agreement prior to receiving medical care is a good way for docs to go.
I'll ping you when it's out. There should also be a press release and other media coverage.
Your questions about punitive damages are headed in the right direction. The Supreme Court recently decided, in case called State Farm, that punitive damages were an unconstitutional denial of due process if they exceeded certain boundaries.
Justice Kennedy, writing for a five justice majority, wrote that punitive damages, generally, should not be more than 1:1 when compare to compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are the measure of a plaintiff's actual economic loss that are recoverable through a lawsuit. (In a med-mal case, for example, the plaintiff's compensatory damages might include his medical expenses and his estimated loss of future earnings resulting from the medical error).
In some cases, Justice Kennedy continued, punitive damages could be as much as ten times compensatory damages, but only if the defendant had engaged in especially "reprehensible" conduct. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy described certain kinds of reprehensible conduct to include repeatedly wrong acts, intentionally wrong acts, acts involving trickery or deceit, etc.
In my book, I propose for state legislatures to adopt laws that mirror this 1:1 versus 1:10 ratio in capping punitive damages. Currently, there are about 30+/- states that have some kind of limitation on punitive damages. Only a few have a cap that is based upon a ratio to compensatory damages.
I hope this explanation helps.