Replies

That's one idea that has some traction to it. Another one, that I especially like, is that punitive damage awards are paid to the government, not the party filing suit.

The logic for that is that the suit is supposed to recover damages for actual losses (including whatever is necessary to cover pain and suffering, etc.), but punitive damages are supposed to punish and deter further wrongdoing. There's no logical reason why they belong to the plaintiff. You could still accomplish the punishment and deterrence by having the award paid to the government, but attorneys would not be able to claim 1/3rd to 40% of those awards as part of their fee in contingency cases.

Take away the financial incentive for lawyers to bankrupt companies with big punitive damage awards, and you'll solve a lot of the problem.

And yes, I'm a lawyer.

Punitive damages go to the GOVERNMENT? That's less sensible than them going to the plaintiff! What about the incentive this would provide to the government to bring product liability and other suits?!?!

How about we just say the loser pays and make that the rule? That would be fair and would ensure real cases make it court.

Is this notion of applying punitive awards to the community at large, the supposed benificiaries, btw, going anywhere? Is it an issue in this case?

Seems to me to need a legislative cure. Too bad the legislatures cow to the lawyers that milk them. A punitive damage by definition belongs to the community.