Law Commons^™

Courts Punitive Damages: Provide For Lifting The Cap On Punitive Damages For Torts Committed While Tortfeasors Are Under The Influence Of Drugs, Jeremy Emanuel Citron

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act provides that a plaintiff, suing for a tort committed while the tortfeasor was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or an intentionally taken substance that had the effect of impairing the person, can be compensated with punitive damages awarded against the tortfeasor. The Act does not require that such a tortfeasor display any intent to do harm or be acting in a malicious or aggravated manner. The Act does not limit the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded against the tortfeasor.

Damages, Deterrence, And Antitrust—A Comment On Cooter, A. Douglas Melamed

Law and Contemporary Problems

Melamed offers a comment on Robert D. Cooter's article on punitive damages. Melamed relates the concept of antitrust to Cooter's valuable insights.

Punitive Damages, Social Norms, And Economic Analysis, Robert D. Cooter

Law and Contemporary Problems

Cooter offers an economic analysis of punitive damages, keeping in mind the role of social norms. Liability for compensatory damages provides efficient incentives for self-monitoring.

Recalibrating The Scales Of Justice Through National Punitive Damage Reform, Kimberly A. Pace

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mass Tort Litigation: Congress's Silent, But Deadly, Reform Effort, Mary J. Davis

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This article explores the ways in which The Common Sense Product Liability and Legal

Reform Act (“Act”) treats mass tort litigation issues. The Act does so both directly and indirectly. The direct methods of reform are mostly industry-specific and, thus, almost inconsequential in contrast to the indirect treatment. The indirect, almost clandestine, methods of reform are the most insidious and provide the most cause for concern as Congress once again attempts to "reform" products liability by reintroducing the Act in 1997. Given the President's early indication that a reform measure could meet with his approval, but that this one in …

Food Lion And The Media’S Liability For Newsgathering Torts: A Symposium Preview , Andrew B. Sims

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tis Better To Give Than To Receive: Charitable Donations Of Medical Malpractice Punitive Damages, Nicholas M. Miller

Journal of Law and Health

The purpose of this Note is not to answer the question of how excessive medical malpractice and punitive damage awards are. Many highly respected scholars on different sides of the issue have spent large portions of their careers trying to resolve that issue without finding a common ground. This author does not boldly claim to provide an answer in this limited forum. This Note does, however, address a possible source of public frustration with the state of medical malpractice and punitive damages: the lack of a principled basis for the awards that juries give to the victims. The perception among …

The Betrayal Of Mcmahon, Constantine N. Katsoris

Fordham Urban Law Journal

There is controversy over awarding punitive damages by arbitration in securities disputes. Securities disputes are unique because the vast majority of such disputes are filed at Self Regulatory Organizations (“SROs”) which are subject to SEC oversight. However, other securities disputes are filed at the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), which is not subject to SEC oversight. As a result differing rules evolved for SRO arbitrations than those applicable at the AAA. No SRO rule directly authorized punitive damages but section 31(d) of the Uniform Code of Arbitration prohibits limiting the ability of arbitrators to make any award. Whereas a AAA rule …

Limits On Preemption And Punitive Damages: Can They Be Related?, Peter Zablotsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages And The Consumerization Of Arbitration, Thomas J. Stipanowich

Thomas J. Stipanowich

In this sequel to his 1986 article on punitive damages in arbitration, Professor Stipanowich explores the issues at the heart of the debate over whether punitive or exemplary damages should be available in arbitration between investors and securities brokers and firms. He critiques relevant proposals by the NASD’s Ruder Commission and examines mechanisms for more effectively addressing the punitive damages issue. This article predates and foreshadows the eventual recognition of the authority of securities arbitrators to award punitive damages.