Buffalo Creek and the question of punitive v. compensatory damages Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes. Damages in the United States include two categories. Compensatory damages are intended to compensate for the plaintiff’s loss. Punitive damages, on the contrary, are meant to punish the defendant .The punitive damages exceed the plaintiff’s loss, to dissuade the defendant from any further wrongdoings. For instance, having a company pay significant punitive damages may encourage it to greater caution. Another difference between the two categories is the money involved. If the damages are compensatory, the money usually goes entirely to the plaintiff, but if they are punitive, part of the money goes to the law firm and part to the plaintiff. One may however ask the following questions. How are punitive damages actually allocated? And what is the current trend in the United States and in France in this area? In order to answer these questions, we will first see how American lawyer Gerald M. Stern man... ... middle of paper ... ...ages was excessive compared to the damage suffered by the plaintiffs and the defendant’s “failures to fulfill contractual obligations”15. This decision could be a start in introducing punitive damages in France, though two conditions would need to be fulfilled for them to be allocated - proportionality both to the damage suffered, and to the defendant’s “failures to fulfill contractual obligations”. Compensatory damages are apparently not an issue at the moment. However, the main problem with punitive damages in the US is their amount - often regarded as excessive. The issue is therefore of limiting their amount or restricting their allocation. In France, on the contrary, the question is whether they should be introduced and under which conditions. French judges seem willing to introduce such damages, and if so, France would be the first country in Europe to do it.
Citizens of the United States of America enjoy a lifestyle of freedom unlike that of any other country in the world. Companies and businesses are expected to comply with the standards of the average consumer; with that being said, American citizens are much more likely to file a law suit than consumers of a different nationality. In the year 1994 alone, thousands of law suits were filed (FindLaw). The most notable case, with exception to the Denny’s payout, was Stella Liebeck versus the popular fast food chain McDonald’s. Stella sustained third-degree burns when she accidentally spilled a McDonald’s cup of coffee onto her lap. She spent eight days in the hospital, receiving skin grafts for burns on her pelvic region. Stella was awarded $2.86
Jonathan Harr wrote a compelling novel, called A Civil Action, on the actual events of a thrilling court case involving two major corporations and the families who were affected greatly. In Woburn, Massachusetts there were twenty-eight children who contracted acute lymphocytic leukemia between the years of 1964 and 1986. The explanation for the contraction of the disease and even the death of some of the children was discovered in the water; two municipal wells near the town were found to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Eight families filed suit against W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc., accusing them for the contamination of the wells and the death of their children. The families only wanted an apology and the truth but when the case began, discovering the truth became difficult.
It is my opinion that the law as currently written (both legislative and common) does not provide the protections for the aggrieved as I assume was envisioned in its intent. For a rich party to merely pay a reset damage in order to capitalize (perhaps in light of market changes or new information) in breaching a valid agreement seeing it as merely a cost of enrichment is an affront to the stability of contract law and enforcement. The ability to award damages for “profit realized” would do well to cement the theory that an agreement is enforceable and legally binding. This is good for business internationally as our global markets will know that an agreement formed in the United States will be honored and the civil laws guaranteeing its enforcement has
"I do not mean to either excuse Vere's technical errors or to argue that technicalities are unimportant. . . . [But] to base criticism of the legal order on procedural errors is to risk explaining injustice as the acts of corrupt, or even just well-intentioned but confused individuals in positions of authority. It avoids questioning the order to which the legal system is intricately related.
Do you remember the lawsuit about the woman who ordered the McDonald’s coffee and spilled it in her lap and sued McDonald’s because it did not have a warning label on it? What about the woman who fell in the fountain at the mall while texting and wants to sue the mall? These lawsuits may seem fairly farfetched. They fall into the category called frivolous.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
Tort law is it intentional or is it unintentional, how do you know? Tort law is “A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings this is to provide relief to those who suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others” (The Free Dictionary). The word tort is a french word meaning a wrong and a tort is classified as intentional or unintentional. Tort law is used for a party who is injured to bring a civil lawsuit against the defendant or wrong doer. The party who sues can receive a monetary reward for damages that occurred to the person who brought the civil lawsuit onto the wrong doer.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
In the articles written by Richard L. Abel and Peter W. Huber both have valid arguments with extremely different viewpoints on the litigation process. Peter W. Huber feels there is too much litigation in our country to where it cripples our society to become more successful. Huber feels there is less encouragement for citizens to take matters in their own hands and take responsibility for their actions. With a rather different perspective Richard L. Abel feels we have too little litigation rather than too much, he believes that manufacturers' products and services cause this and more litigation is actually needed. Abel feels that all injuries that happen to individuals should never go uncompensated. Whether you agree with Abel's theory or Huber's theory on the litigation process today, each makes perfect sense and also has statistics and scenarios to support their theory.
Torts are usually brought up in a civil court and perused by the victim of the injury and the victim if they are able to prove burden or persuasion against the defendant and that they are guilty, compensate for the injury or wrong that has befallen the plaintiff (Suber n.d). Punishmen...
Americans file about 15 million lawsuits a year. (Cannell) A fourth of all lawsuits filed are either frivolous or fraudulent. Perhaps, the careless point of view about the seriousness of lawsuits is perpetuated by the false representation on the many law shows on TV, such as Ally
In a civil case, the victim usually hires a private attorney to determine if the offender is liable for the harm caused to the victim. The act that caused the harm is known as a “tort” in the civil court system. The victim controls all key decisions of the case, such as whether to accept settlement or go to trial. The victim of a civil lawsuit is seeking to be compensated for the harm caused, usually with money. The burden of proof is a “preponderance of evidence” which means that one side’s evidence must be more persuasive than the other. There are time limits on how long a victim has to file a civil lawsuit known as statutes of
...s best attempts to put a value on Robin Aloe’s life, including the loss of her earnings as well as her companionship, guidance and support to the family. In addition, the punitive damages of $18 million will be the court’s attempt to encouraging Toys R Us and similar companies to avoid importing unreasonably dangerous toys in the future as well as to follow the necessary guidelines before selling those products in the US market. This will help to create business practices that will be favorable for both the consumers and manufacturers.
person injured therein, for the recovery of civil damages as a result of any act or omission