Punitive Damages Promotes Justice while Tort Reform Hurts Society - Research Paper Example

? Punitive Damages Promotes Justice while Tort Reform Hurts Society Punitive damages are essential in the society since they promote justice and prevent any harm in the society. The imposition of punitive damages not only helps to promote justice in the society but also helps in deterring future wrongful acts. On the other hand, restrictions placed on punitive damages in form of tort reform hurts the society in many ways. This paper will provide the connotation that punitive damages promote justice in the society while tort reform hurts the society. It will provide extensive research and cases to support this connotation. Introduction Exemplary or Punitive damages are financial damages given to a claimant in a personal civil action and evaluated against a defendant established to be responsible for deliberately infringing the rights of the plaintiff. However, many people confuse punitive damages with compensatory damages. The major difference is that the awarding of punitive damages can only occur after a judge has established that a defendant is accountable for a claimant’s injuries and has set a suitable compensatory award. Moreover, punitive damages are given to a claimant, and are evaluated against a defendant, not counting and excluding compensatory damages. In addition, the awarding of punitive damages can only be successful in occasions where the injury inflicted to the claimant was the anticipated and likely effect of the defendant’s actions.” Moreover, the awarding of punitive damages only occurs in cases where the actions of the defendant are of an adequately egregious nature. Another aspect of punitive damages is that in theory, many people view them as an amazing solution (Kaufman, 2003). The major aim of awarding punitive damages is prevent defendants and others from practicing similar behavior. However, large companies constantly pressurize policymakers to put a cap or restrict on punitive damage awards. This is because they deem that punitive damages incur heavy costs. Conversely, imposing limitations on punitive damages would reduce their effectiveness and deem their purpose insignificant (Sayas, 2011). In addition, punitive damages are a community solution for a community wrong. In this regard, punitive damages are state-inflicted charges for disruptive behavior, safeguarding the public inflicting charges on producers for their deliberate, blatant unconcern to human safety (Pace, 1997). Moreover, punitive damages have a monetary effect that not only obtains the notice of the defendant for perverse behavior, but also to cause the whole business to concentrate on the harm caused and take remedial action (Boulton, 2004). Although there is an extensive reporting of cases relating to multi-million dollar punitive damage awards, the truth is that judges are not hurriedly awarding these damages. This implies that there is no extensive awarding of punitive damages though they are significant in the society. According to a research by an Institute for Civil Justice, punitive damages occur in below 4 percent of all judges decisions. The major reason for this is that there is no awarding of punitive damages except that the claimant clearly illustrates that the defendant meant to harm the claimant, or knew that claimant was likely to experience harm, but intentionally ignored that risk (Sayas, 2011). There are numerous forms of torts, but regarding tort reform, the two major areas of concentration are medical malpractice and products liability. Medical malpractice is a law section that holds medical experts responsible for damage caused by their behavior after they do not conform to sensible principles. On the other hand, products liability is the section of law that normally holds firms accountable for releasing unreasonably risky products on the market (Boulton, 2004). In the 1980s, the tort reform movement started to build up a more lasting institutionalized method to advocate for reform. Not amazingly, there have been extensive arguments concerning the objectives of this movement, the fairness or effectiveness of the precise doctrinal reforms it seeks, and the techniques it uses (Hubbard, 2006). Hubbard (2006) adds that the tort system generally deals with wrongs by rendering the defendant to pay compensatory money injuries to the claimant enough to reinstate the claimant to status quo, that is, to the place the claimant would have taken had the harm not been caused by the actions of the defendant. These money injuries recompense for two forms of losses: economic losses for instance medical bills and lost income; and noneconomic losses for instance psychological suffering and pain. In a case relating to unlawful behavior for instance deliberate or inattentive actions, the tort system might also award punitive damages to the victim. The major aspects included in most tort reform bills include alterations of the collateral source regulation, removal of combined and several liability, condensed statutes of limitations as well as restrictions on punitive damages. However, a major preferred target of tort reformers has been non-economic loss damages. One of the major reasons for this is that it is more politically practical to attain restrictions on these forms of damages compared to passing caps on economic loss (Finley, n.d). Punitive damages promote justice and tort reform hurts society In a world where manufacturers and most businesses inflict harm to the society by releasing harmful products, tort reforms reduce the accountability of these manufacturers for their wrongful actions. In general, the major agenda behind tort reformers is that they push to restrict the access of individuals to the courts. In this regard, tort reformers assert that most court cases are lighthearted and that most claimants might turn their harms into lottery tickets. In addition, these tort reformers do not have faith in the law to help out the harmed individuals and accordingly protect them from harmful practices in the world. Since they do not have faith in the courts, they restrict the access of people to the courts (Schultz, 2011). Other tort reform advocates doctors who engage in malpractice health practices. These doctors deem that they feel chained by the terror of malpractice court cases and the costs of paying for malpractice insurance coverage. As a result, they assert tort reform movement as a remedy for their worries. These allegations have resulted in calls to re-establish virtues of honesty and responsibility in people, instead of permitting people to use the courts to move the blame for misfortunes. As a result, the tort reform movement has pervaded our society, rendering a lot of pressure on legislators to attend to the issue in a valiant and significant manner (Boulton, 2004). Tort reform hurts the society particularly consumers of harmful products in a great way. In most cases, the purpose of punitive damages is to ensure that the products that manufacturers are offering are of good quality and that they will not harm the consumers. This is because no one wants polluted food items, unacceptably constructed cribs, or cars that do not stop. Moreover, the society relies on firms and businesses to sell products that are secure for utilization and consumption. In addition, when these products offered by companies have any error or causes any harm, the society expects the concerned firms will own up these errors and do everything to solve the problems as well as any harm inflicted on the consumers. However if the inflicted damage is severe, the society expects the judiciary to protect the interests and security of its members by imposing punitive damages to the responsible firms. This is because the judiciary is capable of evaluating the severity and intention of the harm caused. Unfortunately, it is precisely this constitutional basis, the right to trial by judges in a civil case, which tort reform takes away. As a result, these tort reforms ends up hurting the society as the firms would continuously harm the consumers with harmful products (Schultz, 2011). The imposition of punitive damages promotes Justice in the society by serving various correlated objectives. These objectives are deterrence, compensation, punishment, policing and education. Advocates of punitive damages often view the aims of deterrence and punishment as the major aims of punitive damages (Kaufman, 2003). Statistics in the United States indicates that the awarding of punitive damages occurs in roughly 6 percent of all cases in which claimants triumph. While awarding of punitive damages mainly occur in tort case, they often occur in agreement disputes and other areas of proceedings. However, despite the significance of punitive damages in the United States, they are of minor significance outside the United States (Polinsky, 1999). The U.S. Supreme Court deems that the difference between the real or likely harm experienced by the claimant and the punitive damages reward determines whether a punitive award is constitutionally unwarranted. In addition, a punitive award that advances the social good in deterrence depends on the damages truly caused by the tortuous misbehavior (Geistfeld, 2008). It is evident that tort reforms may have adverse negative effects on women. For instance, tort reform legislation that might restrict the non-economic harms recoverable in a health-care charge suit may impose severe impacts on women. This is because women often experience various forms of injuries unreasonably. These injuries include sexual abuse and reproductive impairment, including barrenness, pregnancy loss, and gynecological medical misconduct. Consequently, such women experience distorted self-esteem and social adaptation, emotional anguish and misery, damaged physical capabilities as well as distorted relationships. The overall effect is that when women experience these difficulties, they are not able to engage in productive work as well as salary-earning activities. Many of these invaluable, features of human life are practically valueless in the market hence can only be recompensed through non-economic damages. Due to tort reforms, these damages will never be compensated hence hurting women greatly and depriving them of their capacity to engage in meaningful production (Vidal, 2006). Generally, judges constantly award women more in non-economic loss injuries compared to men. In addition, the non-economic segment of women’s whole damage awards is considerably greater compared to the percentage of men’s tort awards regarding non-economic damages. This means that any restriction placed on non-economic damages in the form of tort reforms would hurt women more compared to men. Therefore, tort reforms aiming at placing restrictions on non-economic loss injuries is essentially discriminating against women. In addition, this causes prejudiced access to justice or just recompense for women (Finley, n.d). Non-economic injuries are injuries for psychological suffering, loss of society and friendship, nuisance, emotional pain, hedonic injuries, damage to status, defacement, physical injury, loss of gratification in life, loss of consortium and all other non-financial losses of any manner (Vidal, 2006). One of the major ways in which punitive damages promote justice is that they discourage unhealthy business behavior. This is one of the major methods available to attain justice for clients maltreated by business misbehavior. This solution safeguards or matches the lawful position of the consumer regarding big businesses. Since the common person is incapable of matching the assets of large businesses, the accessibility of punitive as an endorsement for bad behavior simply helps the consumer out. An excellent example of this benefit may occur in the association between a client and his or her insurance firm. For example, a person who files a bogus insurance claim is liable for a crime and may receive chastisement with imprisonment. Conversely, if an insurance firm cheats or deceives a powerless senior or disabled person, the insurance management does not go to prison. This means that the only remaining endorsement against the firm is the inflicting of punitive damages (Sayas, 2011). It is however very unfortunate that, some producers consider company profit as more important compared to safety of the consumers. Despite this tendency, the threat imposed by punitive damages helps in preventing such manufacturers to intentionally market unhealthy products even in the future. In addition, punitive damages help in preventing the manufactures from trading public good for company returns. This also means that punitive damage awards serve as a significant control on the misuse of company power, reducing the often anti-social behaviors of the economic elite. For instance, the inflicting of punitive damage awards in various proceedings has enhanced the safety in the daily lives of American consumers (Pace, 1997). In spite of these legal controls, there are still occasions when company defendants take part in blameworthy behavior. However, punitive damages ensure that such companies can never repeat such actions through discouraging them adequately. Opponents of punitive damages might claim that these sanctions are not always substantial. However, since the imposition of these damages occurs as a direct link to the defendant’s assets, they are actually extensive. For example, a $1 million punitive damages award is merely one percent of the value of a $100 million corporation (Sayas, 2011). Tort reforms can also have adverse effects on the elderly. In this regard, there would be unfair penalization of the elderly by restrictions on non-economic injuries. This is because those who have already retired do not experience any wage loss from life-altering damages. In addition, restrictions on non-economic damages would render it more complex for victims to find lawful representation for particular cases. In this regard lawyers are often not willing to bring suits recognized to be praiseworthy unless they cross a particular threshold of economic loss injuries. In addition, this occurs regardless of the severity of the imposed harm or the compelling nature of the evidence of neglect or medical fault (Vidal, 2006). One of the other major way in which punitive damages promotes justice is through deterrence. Punitive damages deter improper behavior in the society by raising the cost of such actions rendering it economically irrational to behave in such ways. In addition, punitive damages given in tort cases are capable of controlling social behavior by punishing and discouraging behavior that society considers intolerable. To facilitate achieving these goals, the warning imposed by punitive damages must be bigger than the gain attained by the misbehavior (Pace, 1997). This implies that a person or a company will restrain from engaging in irrationally risky behavior likely to cause potentially extensive due to the prospect of the burden of an extra cost in the form of a compensatory injuries judgment. In this case, to the degree that compensatory injuries near the full costs of the defendant’s actions, they attain full deterrence (Sharkey, 2003). When the justification of punitive damages occurs in the form of deterrence contemplations, the award does not engage any vengeance and is extra compensatory. However, the deterrence function of punitive damages is not uncomplicatedly relevant in a case of illegal death. This implies that however collectively advantageous deterrence might otherwise be, it might not guarantee protection the decedent’s personal interests in a case of illegal death. This means that once an individual is already dead, he or she no longer has an interest in physical security, making the advanced objective of deterrence inappropriate (Geistfeld, 2008). Deterrence works well when a prospective wrongdoer realizes that if he will proceed with the wrongful act, there are the legal system will inflict charges on him that are far much greater that the harm he would inflict. In this sence, no individual or company would want to incur more extra costs as sanctions. Advocates of deterrence theory in criminology assert that deterrence works well when punishment is speedy, harsh, and guaranteed. Deterrence function also works well when the results of misconduct are evidently noticeable to prospective wrongdoers. Similarly, the deterrence function of punitive damages functions best when, injuries are very clear and in proportion to the harm inflicted (Kaufman, 2003). Sayas (2011) illustrates four cases that show the importance of punitive damages in deterring bad corporate behavior. In the first case, the Dalkon Shield IUD, produced by A.H. Robins, led to septic abortions, infertility, pelvic infections as well as death in many women after its release in to the market in 1971. Although A.H. Robins got the reports of these damages, it continually sold the product until 1974, when the FDA got involved. After judges awarded over $24.8 million in punitive damages, the firm ultimately decided to inform women and doctors to remove the gadget, and to pay for the removal. In a 1981 case, American Motors had to recompense a $1.1 million punitive damages award when two travelers experienced life-threatening injuries after their Jeep rolled over in an off-road spot and the roll bar crumpled. The verification confirmed that American Motors had never checked the condition of the roll bar, but still publicized the jeep as appropriate for off-road use. Following the punitive damages award, American Motors rebuild the jeep to lessen the rollover danger. In a 1982 case in Arkansas, a newborn baby experienced brain injuries when he ceased breathing following being neglected for about 35 minutes. Evidence indicated that the hospital management deliberately left the nursery short-staffed during the night shift to save costs. After judges gave $2 million in punitive damages, the company that owned the hospital altered its staffing strategy. The other case involved bottled sodas, which earlier had aluminum lids. In 1985, an 80-year-old woman went blind in her left eye after the aluminum cap blew off a 7-Up bottle when she was retrieving it. During the trial, proof revealed that 7-Up knew concerning the risk of exploding bottle caps from the early 1970s, but did not do anything to address the issue apart from putting a warning label on the bottle. After awarding of $10 million in punitive damages by a jury, the whole soda industry shifted to pre-formed plastic lids (Sayas, 2011). On the other hand, a true, disastrous story of the effects of tort reform occurred just lately when a judge in California divided the injuries restricted by federal law in the Amtrak passenger train accident that occurred in Chatsworth, California on September 12, 2008. In 1997, Congress enacted a regulation restricting Amtrak’s liability in any single break down at $200 million. During the crash, there were 24 deaths and more than100 injured people. Some of the injuries were very horrifying and this occurred when the Amtrak conductor, who was texting, changed tracks and crashed in to an oncoming freight train. The judge had to make options concerning which disastrous damage was bigger than the next disastrous damage, and why one dreadfully wounded person should obtain a little more than the next. This rendered all the victims having partial compensation. In addition, the judge had to make out which child who just lost a parent warranted more compensation than the next child who still lost a parent, rendering neither child’s future properly protected (Schultz, 2011). Another major effect of tort reform is in threatening the reliability of the legal system due to impulsiveness in the law and its implementation. Unsteadiness in the law and its implementation or enforcement brings about dissatisfaction and disregard for the law which, consecutively, corrodes public confidence in the judicial system (Pace, 1997). For instance, claimants’ lawyers use lobbying methods and donate to supporters of their views, as well as judges in states. To a partial degree, they have also taken part in publicity promotions for instance those funded by the tort reform movement. In addition, these attorneys use metaphoric methods similar to those of the tort reform movement. A good example of such methods is asserting concerns of “rights of victims” devoid of recognizing the need for defining and protecting the precise rights entailed and the need for assessing the effect of specific suggestions for reform (Hubbard, 2006). Punishment is another major function of imposition of punitive damages. The traditional perception of punitive damages emphasizes on this punishment role especially in a personal-harm model, in which an individual claimant asserts that the defendant behaved in an egregiously misconduct way toward him. The support of this premise comes from a theoretical outlook of ethical desert. In addition, this premise is most coherent with the principle of punitive damages. Particularly, this principle rests in the defendant’s obligatory intention and the fact that a single claimant obtains punitive damages within the system (Sharkey, 2003). The punishment function of punitive damages frequently occur as being of a quasi-criminal disposition and entails making a criminal to undergo suffering for the crime he has committed. The punishment function of punitive damages necessitates that truthfully culpable behavior be chastised more harshly than less culpable behavior. In this regard, the culpability of a criminal act depends on the state of mind of the offender in committing the act, the extent of the bad behavior and the number of people susceptible due to the illegal behavior. It also depends on the extent of interest of high-level officers in the illegal act in the case of a company (Kaufman, 2003). The association between inflicting of punitive damages and completion of the punishment function is theoretically clear-cut when the offender is a person. The achievement of the punishment function occurs following the examination of the culpability of the offender’s behavior and then imposing proper punitive damages. On the other hand, when the offender is a corporation, the punishment function of punitive damages entails several difficulties. For instance, difficulties may arise in determining whether the punishment should entail the whole corporation without referring to a single individual for the misconduct. On the other hand, it may be also difficult to determine whether the objective of the punishment is to punish firms only as a way of punishing guilty persons in the corporation (Polinsky, 1999). Tort reforms may hurt the society in terms of lack of accountability of the corporations that committed wrongful acts. This means that placing restrictions in punitive damages through tort reforms might render the companies that manufacture harmful products unaccountable for their actions. In this regard, influential and affluent firms might push for tort reforms since they want as much a possible to avoid any form of liability that might hurt their bottom lines. As a result, the effects of tort reforms will be that after doing away with punitive damages, producers and businesses would release harmful products in to the market. This is because due to the restrictions placed on punitive damages, it will be easy for manufacturers to release these counterfeit products in to the market. In addition to manufacturers, doctors also would find it easy to neglect patients and engage in unhealthy medical practices (Boulton, 2004). On the other hand, punitive damages often serve a compensatory function. There is much evidence that punitive damages helps to compensate the losses that the claimant underwent. In this view, these losses experienced by the claimant are generally not recoverable as compensatory injuries. The compensatory role of punitive damages involves various aspects including reimbursement for lawyer’s cost or reimbursement related to the stresses regarding proceedings (Kaufman, 2003). Conventional law and financials scrutiny of tort law deems tort reforms as externalities. A well-functioning judicial process generates inducements for possible wrongdoers to internalize the overheads of the externalities by rendering them accountable for reimbursement if a tort essentially happens. This causes good conduct under several situations. In this regard, any attempts of tort reform lessen the extent of accountability thereby increasing accident risk as possible offenders engage fewer costs (Rubin & Shepherd, 2011). Because perpetrators and sufferers are in an agreement association, sufferers will pay for possible injuries imbursements in the form of higher fees. These fees must cover not only financial injuries, but also non-monetary damages as well as managerial costs. Non-monetary damages are damages for occasions, which do not increase the marginal value of wealth and which do not generate a demand for insurance. As prices augment, customers become less prepared to finance the goods and services encompassed by tort law. In addition, suppliers might choose to discontinue delivering the goods and services in general. This means that since most of these goods and services might decrease accident risk, tort reform might essentially cause augmented accident risk (Rubin & Shepherd, 2011). Education is another significant role played by punitive damages, and is intimately linked to deterrence. The educational objective of punitive damages occurs through creating awareness to the public of the reality of a legally protected right and the outcomes following infringement of the standards and principles of the society. Another aspect of the educational objective of punitive damages is that they help in creating awareness to the public concerning counterfeit products and doctors engaging in malpractices. However, the effectiveness of the educational role of punitive damages depends on the ability of the awareness creation resulting from the evidence of punitive damages awarded (Kaufman, 2003). Punitive damages also promote justice in the society by offering extra protection to large corporations. Under California law, the form of misbehavior that permits the revitalization of these injuries must occur under apparent and credible proof, a regulation in proceedings that is severer than the regular evidence beyond prevalence of confirmation. Additionally, the trial judge or a superior court often reviews judgments on punitive damages to establish whether they are sensible. In particular cases, for instance the tobacco judgments, courts have decreased the quantity of jury awards (Sayas, 2011). Tort reforms further harm the society in that the system does not normally offer reimbursement where the injurer was not a criminal. This is because tort reforms inflict restrictions that focus only on the criminal rather than the victim. Moreover, tort reforms do not offer reimbursement where a criminal has no insurance or no individual assets to pay reimbursement. Even where a criminal has insurance or assets, tort reforms will not offer revitalization for damage unless the victim places a claim (Hubbard, 2006). Another way through which tort reforms might hurt the society is through supporting of frivolous lawsuits. This occurs because after imposing restrictions, the valid lawsuits the affected lawsuits are the valid ones and not the frivolous ones. In this regard, most restrictions on punitive damages due to tort reforms do not prevent or eliminate frivolous lawsuits (Schultz, 2011). Hubbard (2006) adds that although the tort reform movement continually claims that frivolous lawsuits are a significant extensive problem, they do not accordingly make efforts of eliminating them. In general, tort reforms pay no attention to information and precise issues and simply retell its “litany of anecdotal horror stories” as well as it is desisting that there is many frivolous proceedings. Although punitive damages promote justice in the society, there are many criticisms that surround them. Due to this, there should be enactment and rephrasing of punitive damages so as to address these criticisms. These critics assert that punitive damages lead to needless proceedings and that they are baseless and extreme. In addition, other critics assert that punitive damages go beyond constitutional penalties for similar behavior and that they render defendants to manifold punishments for the same behavior. Other assertions claim that punitive damages reimburse claimants unnecessarily and that they are harmful to society since they handicap the competitiveness of businesses (Pace, 1997). Conclusion The debate surrounding the issue of punitive damages and tort reforms encompass the issue of corporations and manufacturers. This is because manufacturers often release harmful goods in to the market that eventually cause harm to the society. In addition, some doctors engage in medical malpractices rendering patients many forms of injuries. These aspects cause injustice and unfairness in the society. It is due to these injustices that punitive damages endeavor to promote justice in the society. Punitive damages help in creating awareness to the public concerning counterfeit services and products as well as realizing the doctors who practice various malpractices. Punitive damages also help in deterring future wrongdoings mostly by manufacturers. Moreover, they help in ensuring punishment for the offenders as well as offering compensation for the damage caused. On the other hand, tort reforms endeavor to restrict and reduce punitive damages. As a result, they impose much harm in the society in various ways. Tort reforms render manufacturers and other wrongdoers uncountable for their actions. In addition, tort reforms provide an easy way for such manufacturers to release continually harmful products in to the market knowingly. The imposition of tort reforms also reduces the integrity of the legal systems. In this regard, many people lose their confidence with the legal systems due to arbitrary restrictions. It is therefore evident that imposition of punitive damages promotes justice in the society while tort reforms hurt the society. References Boulton, N.R. (2004). The Farmer’s Retort to Tort Reform: Why Legislation to Limit or Eliminate Punitive Damages Hurts the Agricultural Sector. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 9, 415-438. Geistfeld, M. (2008). Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process. Southern California Law Review, 81, 263-309. Finley, L.M. (n.d). The Hidden Victims of Tort Reform: Women, Children, and the Elderly. Retrieved from Hubbard, F.P. (2006). The Nature and Impact of the “Tort Reform” Movement. Hofstra Law Review, 35, 437-538. Kaufman, E. (2003). Punitive Damages: A Review, Evaluation & Critique of Current Practices & Proposals for Reform. Retrieved from Pace, K.A. (1997). Recalibrating the Scales of Justice through National Punitive Damage Reform. The American University Law Review, 46, 1573-1638. Polinsky, A.M. (1999). Punitive Damages. Retrieved from Rubin, P.H. & Shepherd, J.M. (2011). Tort Reform and Accidental Deaths. Retrieved from http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/Reports/RUBIN-Shepherd.pdf Sayas, C.J. (2011). Why Punitive Damages Are Important To Consumers. Retrieved from Schultz, F. (2011). Tort Reform Hurts the People We All Want to Help - Not the People We Do not. Retrieved from Sharkey, C.M. (2003). Punitive Damages as Societal Damages. The Yale Law Journal, 113, 347-453. Vidal, C. (2006). Tort reform could hurt women. Retrieved from Read More