Gary Born: “The U.S. practice of permitting a lay jury to exercise largely discretionary judgment with limited constraints in awarding punitive damages is regarded almost universally outside the U.S. with a high degree of disfavor.” (via a reader tip)
Related posts:
- Why doctors skip medical interpreters, and how that damages physician-patient communication
- No malpractice contracts
- "Inappropriate theatrics" costs $30 million
- Mark Herrmann: Regulation by lightning bolt
- Naivety
- Lawyers win again, patients lose
- Are doctors ageist?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 5 comments }
It has the effect of undermining the notion that punishment is the domain of criminal law with criminal law standards of culpability. It is in effect the exercise of a fine without having to show the same level of certitude–beyond a reasonable doubt rather than more likely than not.
If the behavior of a defendant is truly so offensive as to merit punishment, there are sufficient statutes on the books to allow criminal prosecution.
The rest of the world is appalled at US punative damages and will not honor this type of nonsense.
These American punative damages appear to be killing new pharma advances and medical technology innovation.
“It has the effect of undermining the notion that punishment is the domain of criminal law with criminal law standards of culpability. “
That may be your notion, but that’s not exactly any longstanding legal theory. How exactly do you apply criminal law standards to a corporation?
Not to mention that there is a check on it in the form of appellate courts.
“These American punative damages appear to be killing new pharma advances and medical technology innovation.”
This claim is based on. . . ? If you can’t spell the word, how are you so sure what multinational pharmaceuticals think of?
And except for Ginsburg fans, who really cares what the rest of the world thinks about US law?
>>”That may be your notion, but that’s not exactly any longstanding legal theory. How exactly do you apply criminal law standards to a corporation?”
If you knew any history, you wouldn’t ask that question. But I guess you got distracted by other poster’s misspellings. So you are fair game IMO.
You prosecute the officers of the corporation and those employees responsible for committing crimes,
you know, that criminal prosecution stuff. But you ask about the corporation as a legally culpable entity. And yes, corporations have been successfully convicted of crimes, one of which, to round you out a little, was I.G. Farben after WWII, which was prosecuted for war crimes.
< <"This claim is based on. . . ? If you can't spell the word, how are you so sure what multinational pharmaceuticals think of?"
You need to worry more about your ability to connect your thoughts in a logical way. This story is about punitive damage awards being found unreasonable by foreign courts, based on their longstanding criticisms of the theory of punitive damages. Re-read the story.
Why do I get the feeling you don’t know as much about the law as you think you do?
“You prosecute the officers of the corporation and those employees responsible for committing crimes,”
Then why have entities at all if you’re going to pierce the veil for civil fraud and charge it as a criminal act? War crimes in international courts are not comparable to civil actions in US courts.
And often, the punitive damages are assessed under the theory of respondeat superior.
“This story is about punitive damage awards being found unreasonable by foreign courts, based on their longstanding criticisms of the theory of punitive damages. Re-read the story.”
Story has been read. And the answer is – so? Why do I get the feeling that you need to understand a little more about the subject before you pontificate on it. How about you read a case where punitive damages have been assessed so you can understand the applicable standards?
Comments on this entry are closed.