Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

If you really want punitive damages, donate them to charity. A charity that acts
to reduce what ever "caused" the tort. Snell and AOPA air safety are good
examples.

What ever you do, do not let governments get their hands on the monies.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Quite right. Mixing criminal punishment and civil retribution is a very bad
thing.
That's exactly why punitive damage as a punishment should have no business
in a civil case.

jue

David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

I would argue that the winner's legal costs be paid from a pool created from
the punitive damages.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this
in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

I would argue that the winner's legal costs be paid from a pool created
from
the punitive damages.


Or better yet the losing lawyer pays the winner's legal fees.

David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


Greetings,
Markus

"Markus Voget" wrote in message
...
David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially
as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


The USA is the ONLY nation that uses the "each side pays their own".

David Megginson opined

snip

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
David Megginson opined

snip

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become
a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Not only that, but then the state has an interest in civil litigation
(between private parties). It would create an overlap with criminal law.

If you think there's a lot of idiotic litigation now, just wait until the
state can go after deep pockets from two different angles.

http://www.overlawyered.com

Tom Sixkiller opined

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
David Megginson opined

snip

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become
a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Ok, but not both at the same time .

Not only that, but then the state has an interest in civil litigation
(between private parties). It would create an overlap with criminal law.

If you think there's a lot of idiotic litigation now, just wait until the
state can go after deep pockets from two different angles.

http://www.overlawyered.com





-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:52:39 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Just not *both* at the same time, eh?

Rob