Some level of punitive damages is also reasonable, on the principle that it’s not enough merely to force a thief to give back the amount of money which was stolen if the thief happens to get caught and convicted. There should be an additional penalty for the harm caused so as to discourage such acts.
But the enormous punitive damages allowed by our tort system go far beyond such objectives. The tort system has developed into a lottery system where litigants (and attorneys who receive a big percentage as contingency fees) can make incredible fortunes if they convinced a sympathetic jury to sock it to the defendant.
Not only should punitive damages be limited, but a “loser pays” system should require unsuccessful litigants to pay the costs and attorney’s fees of the defendant. That’s the way to discourage frivolous lawsuits and to compensate winning defendants for the huge toll which defending an unjust lawsuit imposes on them.
When some states and localities offer favorable climates for unjust lawsuits against nationwide corporations or individuals from other states, it is squarely within the federal government’s legitimate “interstate commerce” powers to place limits on those lawsuits.
Tort limits are needed, but federalizing lawsuits sounds like more big Federal Govt and Business Socialism.
Also, if you Federalize lawsuits and a liberal Dem gets control....wont be good for big business
Tobacco companies are a good example of democRAT lawyering. How much of the damages did and do the lawyers get?
The key is contingency fees. Get rid of those (with a cost plus arrangement for lawyers) and you’d see most of these cases dry up the next day.
I do believe those to means of discouragement are needed to put a damper on the litigious nature of our current society. I do not wish to give wrongdoers a pass, however the defendent is not always the one at fault and thus the plaintiff (and the plaintiff's bar) should have reason to be very careful about the cases they push forward.
You have hit the nail on the head here.