Publicity and the Optimal Punitive Damage Multiplier

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Yun
Keyword(s):  
Punitive Damage

„Die Produkthaftung hat Boeing abgedeckt, aber nicht die punitive damage“

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (6) ◽  
pp. 25-26
Author(s):  
David Gorr ◽  
Elmar Giemulla ◽  
Philipp Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Punitive Damage

scholarly journals A FILOSOFIA JURÍDICA DE DWORKIN E A INDENIZAÇÃO PUNITIVA: FUNDAMENTOS JUSFILOSOFICOS PARA A PUNITIVE DAMAGE EM MATÉRIA AMBIENTAL

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 01
Author(s):  
Fernando Barotti Santos ◽  
Émilien Vilas Boas Reis
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Punitive Damage

O artigo é um estudo de caso à luz da filosofia jurídica de Dworkin. Tratou-se de recursos especial repetitivo do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, que inviabilizou a utilização da indenização punitiva, espécie de responsabilidade civil derivada da common law. A pesquisa busca analisar o voto vencedor, propondo argumentos com uso da tese do ativismo judicial sobre a possibilidade de utilização da punitive damage em matéria ambiental. O presente trabalho foi desenvolvido sob a metodologia jurídico-teórica e raciocínio dedutivo, com pesquisa bibliográfica e jurisprudencial. Conclui-se que por meio do ativismo judicial há possibilidade de aplicação da indenização punitiva em matéria ambiental.

scholarly journals Precise Punishment: Why Precise Punitive Damage Requests Result in Higher Awards Than Round Requests

2021 ◽  
pp. 179
Author(s):  
Michael Conklin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Civil Defense ◽  
Punitive Damage ◽  
Basketball Player ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Used Car ◽  
Insight Into

Imagine a setting where someone asks two people what the temperature is outside. The first person says it is 80 °F, while the second person says it is 78.7 °F. Research regarding precise versus round cognitive anchoring suggests that the second person is more likely to be believed. This is because it is human nature to assume that if someone gives a precise answer, he must have good reason for doing so. This principle remains constant in a variety of settings, including used car negotiations, eBay transactions, and estimating the field goal percentage of a basketball player. This Article reports the results of a first-of-its-kind study involving over 600 participants designed to measure if this same principle applies to punitive damage requests from plaintiffs’ attorneys. In other words, can a plaintiff’s attorney increase the punitive damages awarded simply by requesting $497,000 instead of $500,000. The stark differences produced from such a subtle and costless change provide a valuable strategy for plaintiffs’ attorneys, a cautionary warning for civil defense attorneys, and constructive insight into the subjective nature of juror decision-making.

Punitive Damages: New Twists in Torts

1991 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarence C. Walton
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Punitive Damage ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Purse ◽  
Local Organizations ◽  
Compensation Systems ◽  
Tort System ◽  
American Law

While jurisprudence in the United States has been cast in the general mode of the English common law, modifications over time have produced enough significant variations that American law has a distinctive quality. To illustrate: The exclusionary rule in criminal cases prohibiting the use of evidence (even from reliable witnesses) acquired through illegal search, is not followed in Britain—or, for that matter, in Canada, Germany, and Israel. The punitive-damage concept (PD) in tort law is also a jurisprudential novelty. Punitive damages are imposed in addition to compensatory awards given to tort victims to warn manufacturers and sellers to be careful in their safety and marketing practices. PDs are society's warning signals: Seller beware! Because they are one of society's ways to protect itself, PDs have recently been considered as fines which, to prevent excesses, should be under the rubric of the Eighth Amendment.This essay introduces new elements into the discussion on torts by hypothesizing (1) PDs are fines which belong to the public purse; (2) that expenditures from the public purse should be given to local organizations (like orphanages and inner-city hospitals) which provide vital services for those unable to pay; and (3) that the victim (or the victim's survivor) has a right to designate what local organizations should benefit from his or her punitive-damage awards.The hypotheses require reexamination of the concepts of citizenship, community, and work, respectively.Tort law is an integral part of the American law of injuries, a body of judicial doctrine and legislation and a set of legal arrangements that also include compensation systems and safety legislation. It would have been unthinkable as recently as twenty-five years ago that the tort system would become a source of bitter contention. Today, however, it generates sharp rhetoric and dramatic proposals for change to address its contested problems, as well as strong views in favor of continuing the system essentially intact so as not to disturb its contended benefits.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document