A New Idea for Punitive Damages

Published on June 18, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

We've all seen the cases. Lawsuits where the plaintiff has a clear case, but where we simply don't want to see them walk away millionaires for the kinds of injustices we all face daily. Politicians use these cases to press for tort reform, when I'm not sure that's the answer. The fact is, companies like WalMart could write $250,000 checks all day long without blinkiong and continue with their horrendous business practices if they so choose.

There is a way to address punitive damages from a defendant without making a celebrity millionaire out of the plaintiff, and it's quite simple. After the lawyers get their share and the plaintiff gets a reasonable settlement, have the remainder dedicated to a select charity. The plaintiff could select the charity, and the money donated would not be deductible for either the company or the plaintiff. It would be best if the charity was related to the offense that its being litigated, but I'm not sure if that should be mandatory.

The infamous hot coffee case? Instead of being a multimillionaire, the woman could have received a reasonable settlement and the rest been sent on to Shriner's burn units. In the case of racial discrimination, the surplus could go to a group like the anti-defamation league or an organization working to help with minority home ownership...the possibilities are endless.

I believe many juries sit in a precarious position. They know the company enacted a horrible wrong, but they are appalled by the thought of the plaintiff profitting off of that wrong. This would be a way for them to send a message without feeling like lottery brokers.

Comments

Texas Wahine

on Jun 18, 2005

Really interesting idea, Gideon.

I like it a lot...it is a least a little bit painful for the company responsible for the wrong-doing, will benefit society, provides a sense of justice for the person who has been wronged, and takes the greed out of the equation.

With your passion and creative solutions, you really belong in office.

dharmagrl

on Jun 18, 2005

I agree. The American Justice system has become a 'get rich quick' scheme. People see themselves as being one accident away from a windfall.

Good idea, Gid!

ParaTed2k

on Jun 18, 2005

Good idea in concept, but there are a few flaws I can see coming from here.

When the infamous woman got all crotchety about spilling the coffee she got from Mickey D's, the jurors came out and said that they knew Ronald McDonald and the hotness of his coffee wasn't at fault, but hey, the "award" was "only two days coffee profits" for McDonald's so what's the harm?

With that kind of "deep pockets don't matter" mentality, how long before we hear of multi-million dollar "awards" to a charity because, "We'd rather see The Red Cross (for example) spend the money than it go to Bill Gate's kids. Actual responsibility or wrong-doing already doesn't seem to matter, I think the can of worms will turn into a barrel of snakes if this plan is implemented.

There's a few more, but that's the biggie, so I'll leave it at that. I actually think my "bring back the stocks" idea would work well against those who lose lawsuits. That way the puplic still has the protection of the lawsuit when it seems appropriate, but both the businesses and private citizens would have to think long and hard about the legitimacy of their claim, lest they be locked in full view of onlookers. ;~D

Gene Nash

on Jun 18, 2005

No, because it will just encourage the perpetuation of outrageously large settlements, and probably make them even bigger.

"Well, it is for charity...."

Blech.

Further, who would decide which charity is worthy? People will start complaining about it being "government giving preferential treatment to one charity over another." Splitting it between several charities would leave some out, and make the percentage gotten so small as to be worthless anyway.

Even with the defendant selecting the charity there will be inevitable outrage. You know someone is going to give it to some fringe group and the next day there will be a jurors' press conference saying, "We would never have awarded them so much had we known it would go to such a reprehensible place. This is not what we think of when we think charity." That will be followed by 12 news organization polls condemning the practice, calls from senators to abolish the law, and a Congressional investigation that will cost ten times more in taxpayer money than the original disputed settlement.

Well meaning, but short sighted.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 20, 2005

Gene,

Yeah, not perfect, I'll admit...and thanks for pointing out the potential flaws...but it seems there are many cases where the jury's torn between the idea that they really want to see the business appropriately sanctioned for what it has done (in the case of blatant, obvious discrimination, for one), but are just as sickened by the thought that they are making a millionaire out of the plaintiff. I have always thought that if I had the grounds for such a suit, I would probably stipulate that most of the money go to charity because of the simple fact that I'd feel dirty making my money that way...but that's just me.

Anyhoo, I still think we could at least think in this direction...even if the idea DOES need some tweaking.

Community AT Work

on Jun 20, 2005

Funny you say that. If the case I have gets settles, i want Goodwill to get money. Why? Because that is the organization that helped me while I was denied my unemployment benifits (as retrobution from my former employer for writing to OSHA; a govermental agency) to get a job.

I think my former employer should give money to those who also find themselves unemployed for any reason through GoodWill and Public Assistance.
The other half of the settlement is to pay for all my schooling and all the employees who were effected by their practices for the past 3 years.

No money changes hands here... I get an educaion (of which was taken away from me because I got sick and was hospitalized due to the harrassment I recieved... long story... I ended up dropping too many classes and lost finiancial aid even though I was being harrassed on a daily basis, I just didn't realize how it was effecting my studies...) and so do other. If we don;t go to shcool or if we do, we don't get any direct money.

Since this former company seems to only hire people from ivy league school (and apparently they seem to not have any business sense or conscience), now give other a chance to be in the same position.

I don't end up a multimillionaire, but maybe with hard work and a finished graduate education, I can earn my own millions.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!