Han wrote:
"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.

So now the state treats lawsuits as a source of revenue and does everything
it can to encourage them.

Can you say "unintended consequences"?

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.