On Mar 5, 3:56 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

Better to just ban punitive damages.

I disagree. There is a place for punitive damages. Let's take an manufacture
as an example. Company A finds a design flaw. They do the math and decide
that it would be cheaper to pay out X number of damage awards in the future
than to recall the items and fix them. This is a case where punitive damages
should be levied.

On the other side Company B has a problem with a product and before a recall
could take place there are injuries. This is where no punitive damages
should be levied.

One other thing. The lawyers shouldn't get a cent of punitive damages.

There is a place for punitive damages, sure. But...
I don't know of any other part of our legal system where citizens can
actually exact a punishment against someone. We usually--and
properly--reserve punishment as a function of our government at some
layer. Punitive damages is nothing more than one person financially
punishing another. And as we've seen, juries dole out the punishment
as much for sympathy for the victim as they do punishment for
wrongdoing.

What to do with the punitive damage money? That's a problem, in times
when governments tend to enact financial punishment (fines) for
financial gain instead of simply control. Certainly the involved
government should not benefit. If it went to charities, the judge/
jury might be punitive just to benefit a charity. How 'bout this:
pay the punitive damages in cash, and burn it. Punishment exacted; no
one benefits.

I like the idea of lawyers not getting a cut of the punitive
damages!!!!!