Punitive Damages - Case Study Example

Punitive Damages Proposal This topic raises several arguments. It is so much related to the that I am pursuing, something that deals with education in a broad topic of English. The topic digs deep in trying to look for a stand in the present and upcoming heated debates about punitive damages. This piece of writing will consider all the liabilities of products with great regard to the manner in which manufacturers come by them as they transfer ownership to the consumers. In the recent past, numerous issues relate to punitive damages. A number of approaches are also in place, approaches that have a vast aim of providing solution to the same problems. In addition, they are out to expose clarity in many ways that confusion exists considering punitive damages. These are what the writing is all about as an extensive research was done for a better outcome. It will be significant enough to consider certain law suits that deals with punitive damage. Most of them are in fact considering their depth in cases that had long existed in the past with a hope of providing a guideline of handling the same in the modern times as well as future predictions and occurrences. A substantial methodology therefore is vital for a better result in this work. For instance, it will involve adequate research about the same issues related to the topic in question. In this case, analysis of video sources that contains Arizona Bill that needs amendment is key as well as the research materials that include books and articles with relevant information about the topic. Body With all that it contains in mind, one may wonder why to consider punitive damages at any cost. Looking at its definition at the base, we find them to be damages with an immense purpose of punishing individuals according to their crimes. It is a preventive measure that dawn on them, and because of the same, not only individuals involved in the mess are therefore deterred from repeating their mistakes again in future but also others who might think of committing the same crime. Punitive damages are way above compensatory damages in terms of cost when awarded. In fact, punitive damages awards are so enormous and for this reason, they have become the centre of talk attraction as much as debates regarding tort reforms are concerned, Rivera (2010). It is sometimes referred to as exemplary damage simply because of its nature of serving as an example to individuals of the society who might be tempted to commit intentional offenses. In my view, I see a lot of biasness in the manner in which cases involving punitive damages are handled. How in the world would a simple offence that could be handled and settled with a little some of money, hand defendants into a real trouble of paying more that three thousand times the so said amount? As I have keenly observed, cases punitive damages mostly involve individuals versus companies. This is where the same individuals take advantage and major in the minor offenses that a company might committed against them. This therefore poses a question that needs an effective response. How can someone enjoy a large some of money obtained from a bare sweat but just a mere complain? Does this uphold any dignity in it? Where is the sense of justice when all these happen, and in fact, before the jury? Isn’t this a perfect way of looking for a shortcut for selfish gratification and a show of subjective greed? Considering the questions above, it is a clear fact that punitive damages are nothing but a total resentment to most of its victims. Let’s have a look at both sides of cases presented by punitive damages at hand. For instance, there are products that may cause unforeseen damages to the individuals who consume them. In this regard, it is the right of that consumer to be compensated for the problems caused to them and if possible, they need to get an extra payment for the put out. But does this create a noble chance for unbelievable exploitation of the defendants because of the available opportunities? I believe it should not. To tell the truth, there is no company or individuals that would like to engage in acts that have great consequences like paying for billions of dollars knowingly. This is the reason I advocate for a little consideration for the individuals who find themselves in similar situations. We are now expected to desire kind of torts that are acceptable favorable to both parties that are engaged in a feud. As William and Richard (1986) noted in their article, the decision lies totally within us. This is about whether to means of modification should be that of federal legislation, state or a means that depends on doctrines made by judges, those that are modified by the jury to fit the needs of complainants. On the other hand, the same modified torts have a negative impact on the defendants. It is plain how they are suppressed to the point of loosing so much after committing an offence so little. They are ultimately branded criminals that face a consequence so great to bear! In short, William and Richard (1986) realize as I do how punitive damages awards are extremely exaggerated. A number of clear examples show how punitive damages are awarded. In the first place is a case that happened between a woman and a famous restaurant. Her name is Mrs. Stella Liebeck, who sued a McDonalds Restaurant. This was a coffee restaurant where she went one day to have coffee but spilt it on her own lap when she tried to pull the plastic cover while was actually driving. You cannot imagine that a jury’s decision was to award the elderly woman a sum of $2.9 million, amount that McDonald Restaurant paid, according to PD Insurance Co., Limited. Above case shows a great deal of biasness, unfairness, and what I would call exploitation of the highest order. Someone may seriously wonder why McDonald had to pay such a substantial amount of money whereas the fault was all Mrs. Liebeck’s. I clearly do not see the fault of McDonald Restaurant yet they had to pay that penalty. In another case where an equivalent scenario occurred, we find a lawsuit that entails another woman against two parties; a senior employee in a firm that they both work at and the firm itself. She is mention as Reena Weeks, a woman who has a case against Martin Greenstein and a firm identified as Chicago-based Baker & Mcenzie. Her argument was all based on harassment in the view that Mr Greensten touched her breast in 1991 and then made an unsophisticated remarks, something that really irritated her. She went ahead and pleaded for a significant amount of money for compensation as will be seen below. This in my concurring opinion with (Joni and Viscusi) in their book violated a provision. It stated how pleading could do very little in stating exact amounts for any punitive damages but instead, Reena Weeks was compensated over what she pleaded for. The outcome of her abhorrence was evident in her afterward action in which she decided to sue both Martin and the firm. Her allegation was that the firm did not try to get involved in preventing Mr. Martin from his similar mischievous behavior even though many women who work in the same company had complained before. She ended up obtaining more that $7 million punitive damages award alongside a compensatory damage of $ 50,000. To be specific, Mr. Martin gave out $ 225, 000 while the firm managed a sum of $ 6.9 million (PD Insurance Co., Ltd www.pd-insurance.net/cases.html). Yet again, an occasion that shows biasness of punitive damages award is about one Mr. Ira Gore, a customer who bought a BMW car from the manufacturing company. After nine month went down the line, he realized that the car had been repainted with an aim of repairing damages caused during shipping. Himself he did not have a problem with that but went ahead suing the manufacturing company. His greatest claim was base on defrauding claiming that the company failed to reveal to him that the car which he bought underwent a refinishing process, (PD Insurance Co., Ltd www.pd-insurance.net/cases.html). Many cases still about consumer use commodities and in the process realize their faultiness and shortcomings. Some of them in real fact are hazardous and may cause much harm to the user of the same commodity. When such common situations occur, I am totally against the so called punitive damages award schemes for they are nonrealistic, Rivera (2010). However, there are several misconceptions about punitive damages, which need to be set right. It is wrong to believe as many do that punitive damages are awarded in all cases. I tend to support this about it because not all cases but only those that show accidental or negligence acts of a defendant. The fact that, a constitutional guide prevents excessive punitive award, simplifies everything. The ration is 4:1 and this rules out a misconception that punitive damages awards allows for the recovery of as much money as one may require. It is a clear fact that so much is needed to be done about the Arizona Bill. This bill needs a lot of review to ensure that both plaintiffs and defendants are given a fair hearing when faced with punitive damages award schemes. Upon reviewing the Arizona bill, there would be subsequent protection to various companies that make products for consumption. With regard to consumer rights in the field of business and law, there is an expected protection guaranteed to the same consumers that is when this Arizona Bill is reviewed. Annotated Bibliography PD Insurance Co., Ltd. “Punitive Damage Cases.” 1998. Web. 12 April 2012. In this article PD insurance Co., Ltd. Describe a series of legal views that come hand in hand with the notion of punitive damages awards schemes. It tackles much about size of awards towards product liability cases. The authors of this article provide a summary of famous cases that have been handled in the past. It also significantly exposes hoe the same case were handled and the results that came out after handling them. This article is an important one in this writing because of the variety of cases that it entails. These are for sure what express the real meaning of punitive damages. Jay, Rivera. Business Law Employment and Personal Injury: Common Misconceptions about Punitive Damages. New York: Newy York Criminal Layers Blog, 2010. Print. Rivera has a lot of contribution to the research topic about punitive damages. All that he puts across contains definition of the attention in question, the scope and the real reason why to use it. He goes further to explain while giving examples award system in the field of punitive damage. Most significantly, he explains the misconceptions about the same and the way forward to view this punitive damages awad. This is a real article that serves the purpose of this work. Hersch, Joni and Viscusi, Kip. Punitive Damage: How Judges and Juries Perform. Nashaville: Harvard Law School, 2002. Print. In this article, Hersch and Viscusi explain the ways in which judges and juries react upon punitive damages in liability cases. They expose in depth their analyses on the review of enormous awards that come about due to punitive damages. They further expose the distinguishing features that exist between judges and juries in terms of job performance. In addition, their research reveals the diverse nature of the same in their manners of awarding punitive damages. The two have used data analysis to come up with their book. They obtain their data from Civil Justice Survey of State Courts. Their research has got vital information that serve as a useful source of information for this work. It severs a purpose of a supplementary research material since it has got a limitation since it doesn’t give a clear stand on the research topic. It therefore requires a further extensive research to serve this purpose. William, Landes and Richard, Posner. New Light on Punitive Damage. Harvard University Law School: Regulation Publishers, 1986. Print. In this article, the two authors disclose the need to reform the law system that would work to see punitive damages award schemes eliminated. In a clear fact, the article gives freedom in engaging in a debate to take a stand on the path that is desirable to an individual. There is no restriction to whichever way one may like to hold on as far as punitive damages area concerned. They talk about tort cases that expose punitive damages and as other authors also reviewed, they consider product liability cases that reveal the nature of punitive damages. In their research to write their book, they use recorded tables in the product liability cases. In fact, this article serves a great purpose in this argumentative essay and this makes it one of the basic research materials. Works Cited PD Insurance Co., Ltd. “Punitive Damage Cases.” 1998. Web. 12 April 2012. Jay, Rivera. Business Law Employment and Personal Injury: Common Misconceptions about Punitive Damages. New York: Newy York Criminal Layers Blog, 2010. Print. Hersch, Joni, Viscusi W. Kip. Punitive Damage: How Judges and Juries Perform. Nashaville: Harvard Law School, 2002. Print. William M. Landes, Richard A. Posner. New Light on Punitive Damage. Harvard University Law School: Regulation Publishers, 1986. Print. Read More