Quote:
|
Originally posted by cpt kangarooski: Obviously you mean plaintiff, but nevertheless I don't much like it, nor do I see it being practical. Without contingency fees, poor people cannot afford to sue. That's a bad idea, since it allows tortfeasors to do bad things to poor people with impunity, as long as they avoid criminal prosecution. And not every case can support punitives, you know. I have yet to see a balanced argument for tort reform, I'm afraid, and I don't see serious problems with the status quo. |
He raises an interesting pont though: why should punitive damages go to the plaintiff? If their purpose is to punish the defendent, why should they reward the plaintiff? We're not talking about any damages other than punitive, AFAIK, so pain and suffering, damages, etc would all be status quo.
He also throws in another interesting monkey wrench: minimum punitive damages to cover court costs. I've heard it speculated that you could reduce frivolous lawsuits by using a system where the loser has to pay the cost of the action going to court. That, too, sounds reasonable to me...
BlackGriffen
Edit: Stupid legalese at midnight...
