Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legal Theory

1993

Punitive damage reform

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Comments On The Reporters' Study Of Enterprise Responsibility For Personal Injury, Jerry J. Phillips May 1993

Comments On The Reporters' Study Of Enterprise Responsibility For Personal Injury, Jerry J. Phillips

San Diego Law Review

This Article critiques the substantive law and damage proposals of the Reporters' Study on Enterprise Liability, which was published in 1991 by the American Law Institute. Contrary to the Reporters' recommendations, the author proposes retaining the consumer expectations test and strict liability for product suppliers. He argues that it is not practical to shift medical malpractice liability, as proposed by the Study, from doctors to hospitals. In the area of damages, the author proposes retaining the rules of recovery for pain and suffering, punitive damages, and the collateral source rules essentially as they are now, instead of adopting the changes …


The American Law Institute's Reporters' Study On Enterprise Responsibility For Personal Injury: A Timely Call For Punitive Damages Reform, Victor E. Schwarz, Mark A. Behrens May 1993

The American Law Institute's Reporters' Study On Enterprise Responsibility For Personal Injury: A Timely Call For Punitive Damages Reform, Victor E. Schwarz, Mark A. Behrens

San Diego Law Review

This Article focuses on the Reporters' Study on Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury, specifically the Reporters' recommendations for punitive damages reform. The Article discusses the Study's analysis of the need for punitive damages reform, with which the author agrees. The Article also discusses the Study's recommendations concerning reform of the standard by which punitive damages should be awarded, recommendations to set reasonable limits on the size of punitive damage awards, and the recommendation of a shield against punitive damages for products that comply with federal regulatory standards. The authors find that generally the recommendations are fair and reasonable. They believe …