"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Tort damages consist of several pieces: recovery of economic loss,
pain & suffering, loss of consortium, and so on. My plan is to divert
ALL "punitive" damages to the state. Punitive damages are really
"fines" to discourage future rascally behavior by the defendant, so
why should the plaintiff benefit? In many cases, punitive damages
dwarf all other awards and it is they that make the case worthwhile
for the plaintiff bar.

As an aside, Walmart has a policy (I'm told) of NEVER settling a
"slip-and-fall" case - they will always take the case to trial. This
costs more up front, but it does guarantee that meritless claims don't
get past the letter-writing stage.

Fine, but now the lawyers take 1/3 of all awards. I think the person who
is "damaged" should get all his losses (including reasonable lawyers'
fees) reimbursed. The "loser" should pay all lawyers fees, and indeed
punitive "rewards" should go to the state.

The Walmart thing is possibly just cases going after deep pockets, IMNSHO
that is not to be permitted. However, someone or some organization
should have been punished for the "thing" that happened to the person(s)
trampled to death during the Black Friday opening of a store in Valley
Stream Long Island. It does not seem logical that providing insufficient
security should go unpunished. Plus the mob there should have been
punished somehow. Just my opinion.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid