C J Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:56:11 -0700, Gig 601XL Builder wrote
(in article ):

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.

Why? If actual damages are paid for then the company has behaved
responsibly. In fact, all warranties are based on the idea that it is
cheaper to fix a few flawed items than to prevent any flawed item
from leaving the loading dock. A warranty is nothing more than an
insurance policy that the buyer is forced to pay for.

I see no reason for punitive damages if the plaintiffs are being made
whole.

Because you could very well find that many companies will find it cheaper to
pay the actual damages than fix a life threating problem.