[traditional1]

"The government the people selected failed to exercise its duty of care, and those responsible for selecting those to make those decisions will ultimately bear the cost (citizens of MN, not the U.S.).

Sorry; that's not the ultimate result. When the people of MN are fleeced to pay the cost of the "government's negligence", the funds expended will be replaced from Federal Funds gained through earmarks from their Congressmen for other projects, so that the budget can be balanced. The American taxpayers are already bearing the cost of the bridge reconstruction (Federal funding), which is the REAL cost of the bridge failure (not the "punitive damages" yet). When the PUNITIVE award in the millions of dollars comes through, then Federal funding (aka, American taxpayer dollars) will be appropriated through some earmark to replace those State funds lost in the litigation.

Count on it. No State will lose General Funds and not replace them from other sources, and, in this case, you can bet it will be the Federal funds they seek (same ol' deep pockets at work).

[jdub]

What do you base your statement regarding punitive damages on? Do you know what the standard is in MN to allow recovery for punitive damages? I don't know either, but I doubt it is as liberal as states where you hear about the outrageous awards being granted. Of course, as I said most likely such an award would never be allowed to stand, but no one bothers to see how the story ends, they see an article that confirms their (uninformed) beliefs, so that is all they need.

I live in TN, here is what the state of tort is here, in a nutshell:

punitive damages: only available when the harm results from gross negligence or an intentional act. Why? actual damages aren't to punish the tortfeasor, but to compensate the victim. Negligence doesn't deserve punishment, but gross negligence or intentionally causing harm does. What happens if the jury is outraged, and awards $1 million in actual damages, and $20 million in punitive? Judge automatically throws out the whole punitive award. Anything over 10X the actual damages and the jury is assumed to be acting under passion rather than reason.

actual damages: what happens when you have a negligently caused injury, a plaintiff that the jury likes and a very talented plaintiff's lawyer who gets his client an award far in excess of what others normally receive for the same injury? The defense files a remittitur motion, meaning the trial judge can reduce the award to the upper limit of what is normally given for a similar injury. Defense still can appeal, and will, if it is a big award (even if deserved) in the hopes of getting the plaintiff to settle for less or to delay paying.

In the "real world", deserving plaintiffs get screwed a lot more than innocent defendants.