Punitive Damages Research Articles

Information transmission during the trial: The role of punitive damages and legal costs

AbstractThis paper studies an incomplete information model in which a preventable accident occurred. The judge determining punitive damages observes the firm's (defendant) investment decisions, but is uninformed about the firm's experience adopting safety measures. Our model allows firms to file an appeal if the judge's verdict is incorrect, which the judge may accept or reject. We identify under which conditions a separating equilibrium exists where the firm's investment decisions signal its type to the judge, who responds with a correct verdict, thus avoiding future appeals. Our paper also finds conditions under which a pooling equilibrium exists whereby the firm's investment in precaution conceals its type from the judge, who can respond with an incorrect verdict thus giving rise to appeals. Furthermore, we show that the separating equilibrium is more likely to arise if the percentage of revenue that defendants are required to pay in punitive damages decreases, if the punitive‐to‐compensatory ratio increases, and if the legal cost of filing an appeal increases.

DAÑOS PUNITIVOS Y PRÁCTICAS ANTISINDICALES

In this article, the possibility of imposing punitive damages for anti-union or yellow-dog practices will be examined. These days, the remedies taken by courts are basically the cessation of the conduct and the respective fines. However, these remedies seem to be insufficient, especially in a scheme of cost/benefit, where some companies prefer to pay fines rather than having to talk to their employees and representatives. Therefore, it is interesting to read the article 495 N° 3 of the Labour Code in the sense that when talking about “compensation as appropriate” may include punitive damages.

Double licence fees are not punitive damages

Double licence fees are not punitive damages

The Role of Human Dignity in the Assessment of Fair Compensation for Unfair Dismissals

South African labour law is concerned with the attainment of fairness for both the employer and the employee. In weighing up the interests of the respective parties it is of paramount importance to ensure that a delicate balance is achieved so as to give credence to commercial reality as well as an individual's right to dignity. In other words the attainment of fairness in the employment relationship must give cognisance not only to surrounding socio-economic reality but also to human rights. The environment within which the world of work operates has at its core a free enterprise economy. Ultimately, an employer should generally not be penalised to the extent that it is crippled and unable to continue operating. It is argued in this article that in ascertaining what constitutes appropriate compensation for an unfair dismissal, the underlying reality that labour law operates in a free enterprise system must be and is given cognisance to by the legislation and the courts. At the same time in ascertaining what constitutes fair compensation for unfair dismissal due regard must be had not only to the labour rights contained in the Constitution but also to other rights protected in terms of the Constitution, most importantly, the rights to dignity and equality. The fact that the basis of the employment relationship is commercial and an employer is entitled and even encouraged to make profits is reflected in our law by the fact that there are caps on the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal in the interests of business efficiency and certainty. However, an analysis of relevant case law demonstrates that this can never be at the expense of a person's dignity. Hence the notion that the employment relationship is relational. This is reflected by the interpretation given to the legislation by the courts. Where there has been discrimination or an impairment of the employee's dignity, there are no such limits as to the amount of compensation a court can award. If there has been unfair discrimination, the courts may even award punitive and non-pecuniary damages.

Brief of Professor Scott Dodson as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. of Chi. & Fannie Mae, No. 16-658 (S. Ct. 2017)

This case presents the question of whether the civil appellate deadline of Rule 4(a)(5)(C) is jurisdictional. In this blissfully short brief, I make two arguments advanced by neither party. First, I argue that a rule's jurisdictional character is not dependent upon labels or distinctions with claim-processing rules. Rather, a rule is jurisdictional when -- and only when -- it addresses a boundary between adjudicative bodies. Appellate jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction all qualify because they address boundaries of authority among different adjudicative bodies. By contrast, a limit on court authority is nonjurisdictional when it speaks only to that court's authority, independent of other adjudicative bodies. Statutes of limitations, limits on punitive damages, statutory coverage, fee-shifting rules, inherent-power limits, and the like are nonjurisdictional because they speak only to a court's authority in isolation from other courts. Under this definition, the appellate deadline in Rule 4 is jurisdictional. Second, I argue that a rule's jurisdictional character does not determine its effects. rote belief that a jurisdictional limit is nonwaivable, nonforfeitable, and inexcusable is simply wrong. A rule has whatever effects the rule and other law provide. jurisdictional deadline to appeal in Sec. 2107(c), for example, may be extended according to judicial discretion, party conduct, and equitable circumstances: The district court MAY, UPON MOTION filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise set for bringing appeal, extend the time for appeal upon a showing of EXCUSABLE NEGLECT OR GOOD CAUSE. Thus, Rule 4(a)(5)(C)'s jurisdictional status does not mean that it cannot be forfeited by an appellee or extended for equitable reasons. Those questions, instead, must be answered by resort to ordinary principles of rule interpretation; they cannot be answered simply by resort to the Rule's jurisdictional character.

Dow, Bayer sued for polluting university campus

In a lawsuit, West Virginia State University accuses Dow Chemical and Bayer of polluting the groundwater under its campus with three likely carcinogens: 1,4-dioxane, 1,2-dichloroethane, and chloroform. Although the suit, filed on April 27 in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, places no dollar value on a remedy, it seeks cleanup as well as compensatory and punitive damages, including a “national public relations program” to restore the school’s reputation. Dow operates the nearby Institute Industrial Park, where Bayer is a tenant. Dow “must be held accountable for the damage it has done to our property and reputation,” university President Anthony L. Jenkins says. The industrial park was the site of a methyl isocyanate plant once owned by Bayer and Union Carbide, now a subsidiary of Dow. Although the plant closed several years ago, for years, residents of Institute, W.Va., worried about a leak, mindful of the 1984 accident at a

The Punitive Damages Calculus: The Differential Incidence of State Punitive Damages Reforms

State punitive damages reforms have altered how courts award punitive damages. We model the decision to award punitive damages as a two-step process involving the decision to award any punitive damages and the decision of what amount to award. For the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts samples of trial court verdicts, punitive damages caps reduce the amount of damages awarded but do not affect whether they are initially awarded. In contrast, the effect of punitive damages reforms on blockbuster punitive damages awards of at least $100 million is to reduce the incidence of these awards, but not their amount.

The Punitive Damages Calculus: The Differential Incidence of State Punitive Damages Reforms

State punitive damages reforms have altered how courts award punitive damages. We model the decision to award punitive damages as a two-step process involving the decision to award any punitive damages and the decision of what amount to award. Using samples of trial court verdicts from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, we find that punitive damages caps reduce the amount of damages awarded but do not affect whether they are initially awarded. Additionally, we find that maintaining lower evidentiary standards increases both the probability that punitive damages are awarded and the size of those awards.

Remedies for Breach of Trust

Trustees and other fiduciaries manage, invest, and distribute trillions of dollars in assets, subject to fiduciary duties. But the remedies for fiduciary breach, and their justifications, are convoluted. The conventional view, especially in law and economics, is to characterize most fiduciary relationships, including trusts, as contractual and most fiduciary duties as implicit contract terms. One might suppose, then, the optimal remedy for fiduciary breach would be the same as the remedy for contractual breach: damages. But the traditional equitable remedies and modern remedies in fiduciary law allow a plaintiff to elect either damages based on plaintiff’s harm or disgorgement based on defendant’s gain. Moreover, some courts now allow punitive damages for fiduciary breach, even though, historically, punitive damages were unavailable in contract and fiduciary law. Applying insights from optimal deterrence theory and agency costs theory, this Article provides a framework for analyzing remedies in trust law, fiduciary law, and beyond. It argues that disgorgement and punitive damages serve distinct purposes and that both remedies may be necessary to achieve the deterrence and disclosure functions of fiduciary law and other situations involving the stripping of ill-gotten gains. If a defendant’s gain exceeds the harm and there is no possibility of the defendant’s escaping liability, then an election of damages or disgorgement may be necessary to deter breach, but punitive damages are not. Conversely, if there is no concern about ill-gotten gains but the defendant may escape liability, punitive damages are necessary to deter, but disgorgement is not. In both cases, a single type of remedy is necessary to deter wrongdoing. However, if there is a concern about both ill-gotten gains and a defendant’s escaping liability, then an election of punitive damages or punitive disgorgement is necessary. A damages multiplier, set equal to the inverse of the probability of escaping liability, forces a party to internalize the harm by paying average damages equal to expected harm. In addition, because a defendant may escape liability when the gain exceeds the harm as well when the harm exceeds the gain, there is a justification for punitive disgorgement. Under this remedy, a court not only would strip ill-gotten gains but also impose a disgorgement multiplier to ensure that a defendant forfeits the entire expected benefit by paying average disgorgement equal to the expected benefit. In these cases, double deterrence is necessary to prevent wrongdoing.

독점규제법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입에 관한 입법방안 검토

독점규제법상 징벌적 손해배상제도 도입에 관한 입법방안 검토

A Study on the Introduction Method of Punitive Damages System

영미법과 대륙법은 손해배상법제상의 차이가 있다. 영미법계의 징벌적 손해배상제도를 대륙법계인 우리나라에서 전면적, 직접적으로는 도입하는데 있어서는 그러한 차이의 극복방안이 필요할 것이다. 피해자가 전보배상을 받았음에도 또 다시 징벌적 손해배상을 받음으로써 그 몇 배수에 해당하는 금전적 이득을 얻는 것에 대하여도 사회적 합의가 요청된다. 징벌적 손해배상제도의 장점과 단점을 면밀히 살피고 국민의 법감정과 법의식에 맞는 제도를 검토할 필요가 있다. 징벌적 손해배상의 본고장인 미국에서 조차 지나치게 고액인 징벌적 손해배상 제도의 문제점 때문에 이를 제한 및 폐지하려고 하는 움직임이 있음을 감안해 볼 때 우리나라에서도 징벌적 손해배상의 인정범위(범주) 및 금액의 무한정 ․ 무제한 확장에는 신중을 기하지 않을 수 없다. 또한 배심원제도가 없는 우리나라에서 법관이 징벌적 손해배상액의 산정에 관해 일반적인 재량을 행사하는 것은 우리 법감정 아래에서는 받아들이기 어려울 수 있다. 결국 입법과정에서 사회적 합의를 이루어 내야 할 것이다. 생각건대 참여연대의 “징벌적 배상에 관한 법률안”에서 제안하고 있는 것처럼 배액배상의 형태와 상한선폐지의 형태를 혼합하는 방안도 현실적인 대안이 될 수 있을 것 같다. 피해자가 받은 실손해의 2배정도의 상한을 두는 경우에서부터 상한을 두지 않는 이론상으로는 무한대까지 징벌적 손해배상액에 차등을 두어 세부적으로 규정하는 것이 적절하지 않을까 생각해본다.The purose of the law of torts is to compensate people who have been injured as a result of tortuous acts. In many such mass tort case involving product liability, consumer fraud, the plaintiffs generally requested punitive damages. There are two types of damages that can be awarded in product liability cases. - the compensatory damage is to compensate a victim who has suffered a loss or damage. - the punitive damage is to punish a aggressor who did harm for a victim.“punitive damages” are damages, other than compensatory or nominal amages, awarded a person to punish for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and other like him from similar conduct in the future. it can be said that punitive damages are in some sense “quasi- criminal”, standing somewhere between the civil law and criminal law. Since 1986, in respons to the argument that American punitive damages are unpredictable, unfair, and excessive, many states began to implement legislative reforms in order to scale back multiple punitive damages awards and to minimze overkill. To have consistency and uniformity in the state laws of punitive damages, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform States Law( NCCUSL) adopted the Model Punitive Damages Act in 1996. the Model Punitive Damages Act provides a lot of factors to be considered in determining a punitive damages awards, such as the nature of the wrongful conduct, the amount of actual damages etc. According to the 14th Amendment to US Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without of process. the legal scholars and practitions from civil law countries generally reject the coctrine of punitive damages. Korea has recently enacted several statutes authorizing punitive damages. the Fair Transaction in Subscontracting Act introduced a treble damages in order to protect subcontractors, who are the weaker contracting parties than the general contractors. This interplay between the providing adequate compensation to an injured plaintiff and deterring wrongdoers underlies much of the of Torts.

Responsabilidade Civil E Indenização Por Dano Moral No Direito Do Trabalho: A Aplicação Da Doutrina Dos Punitive Damages

O presente artigo tem por escopo descrever e analisar a importância da responsabilidade civil no âmbito do direito do trabalho com especial ênfase para a aplicação da doutrina dos punitive damages como um avanço para o desenvolvimento do direito brasileiro no campo das soluções a problemas reais que envolvem direitos fundamentais no trabalho. O problema da pesquisa é identificar a aplicação da doutrina dos punitive damages, a sua justificação no âmbito da sistemática da reparação civil e, em especial, a sua aplicabilidade como mecanismo de defesa de direitos fundamentais no trabalho. O procedimento investigativo é descritivo-explicativo do tipo documental-bibliográfico.

Materia loses metathesis patent case

A federal jury has ordered technology and catalyst firm Materia to pay Evonik Industries royalties of more than $1.5 million in a dispute over the validity of a key patent covering ruthenium-based olefin metathesis catalysts used to make plastics and specialty oleochemicals. However, the jury also decided that Materia had not willfully or maliciously violated Evonik’s patent. It did not assess punitive damages. The Delaware jury’s decision may end a seven-year-old dispute covering academic patents licensed to Materia based on discoveries by Robert H. Grubbs of Caltech and other scientists. Grubbs, along with Yves Chauvin and Richard R. Schrock, shared the 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their role in the discovery of olefin metathesis. According to Evonik, an earlier ruling by the judge hearing the case denied the validity of Materia’s opposing patent. “A significant number of Materia’s metathesis catalysts and some products they make with them are now

Enhancing the Standards of Civil Damages Remedies to Fight Copyright Piracy in International Trade? A Commentary on the Proposed TRIPS-Plus Damages Reforms in the Third Amendment to the Copyright Law

The proposed third amendment to PRC copyright law endeavours to enhance the standards of damages to fight piracy more effectively via a TRIPS-Plus approach. This includes, inter alia, reframing statutory damages, introducing punitive damages, and new evidence rules granting the right of information to right holders. Nonetheless, the inconsistency of the extra-compensatory rationales of civil damage with the principle of restoration enshrined in the traditional Chinese copyright regime risks causing difficulties for the Chinese courts in implementing the new rules. The new provision on the right of information on pirated goods is a significant weapon to combat piracy that, conversely, risks causing tension between copyright enforcement and data protection, in addition to jeopardizing the defendants’ and third persons’ rights to privacy. This article argues that the proposed higher protection standards of copyright enforcement in China should not remain solely written law. The Chinese courts need to develop applicable conventions for calculating damages, based essentially on investigation using objective criteria of how much compensation ought to be payable, which is also the basis of calculating reasonable statutory damages. In this regard, this article advocates considering the merits and demerits of compatible enforcement provisions in the US and EU, and, meanwhile, developing a unified minimum standard for all courts in China via accepted and consistent judicial practice and through persistent dialogue and interaction with the academic community.

Guiding Jurors with Prior-Award Information: A Randomized Experiment

Jurors receive little guidance in determining awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages. Consequently, these awards are notoriously unpredictable, undermining the law’s objectives and causing a wide range of harms. Among the methods that have been proposed for addressing the unpredictability of such awards is the use of information regarding awards in comparable cases (“prior-award information”) as guidance for award determinations. This paper reports and interprets the results of a factorial experiment designed to test the effects of prior-award information at different levels of bias, variability, and form of presentation on the magnitude, spread, and accuracy of awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages. The paper examines juror behavior in response to prior-award information, and interprets whether such information can be expected to improve awards under a robust set of conditions. In summary, the data provide strong evidence that prior-award information improves the accuracy of awards (as defined) and that its beneficial effect on the dispersion of awards generally dominates any distortion, or bias, caused by the information. Furthermore, the data provide evidence that triers of fact respond to prior-award information as predicted in recent literature, and in line with the “optimal” use of such information.

Family Law and Female Empowerment

Author(s): Carroll, Andrea B. | Abstract: Domestic relations law has struggled with feminism for decades, and it has never truly found a place in the family law arena. The crux of the problem, no doubt, is that family law has always had a difficult time defining feminism in context. From an economic perspective, is it feminist to provide economic assistance to women, who studies continue to show suffer far more than do their male counterparts in the wake of divorce? Or does feminism instead require a recognition of the ability of women to make equivalent financial contributions to a marriage as men, and thereby accept only pure equality of treatment? A series of incongruent doctrines makes it clear that family law truly does not know what feminism should mean.Consequently, the system of family law largely fails to achieve one of feminism’s most fundamental tenets: empowerment. This Article will sample a diverse cross-section of family law and analyze it from a feminist perspective. Part I will consider the state of a woman’s decision-making authority in the reproductive context. Parts II and III will explore the modern proliferation of domestic violence-related legislation, analyzing state law schemes that provide for both punitive damage recoveries and permanent spousal support. Part IV will address marital property regimes around the country. Across all contexts, the Article will demonstrate that, often despite the best intentions of legislators and jurists, family law wholly fails to empower women.

Modern Development of Punitive Damages

Modern Development of Punitive Damages

하도급법상 징벌적 손해배상의 법집행상 문제점과 그 실효성 제고방안

하도급법상 징벌적 손해배상의 법집행상 문제점과 그 실효성 제고방안

Punitive damages: características do instituto nos Estados Unidos da América e transplante do modelo estrangeiro pela jurisprudência brasileira do Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2016v37n74p295Resumo: O presente artigo busca, essencialmente, contribuir com a discussão doutrinária no que diz respeito ao instituto da indenização punitiva, conhecido, em sua origem anglo-saxônica, como punitive damages. Para esse fim, o estudo divide-se em duas partes: em um primeiro momento dedica-se a esclarecer os elementos que constituem o instituto em sua origem – detalhando-se sua definição, características, funções, e diferenciando-o do caráter punitivo atribuído nacionalmente às indenizações por dano moral. Já a segunda metade centra-se na análise do instituto dentro do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro – em específico com um diagnóstico detalhado de sua aplicação pelo Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina.

The Impact of State Tort Reforms on Imaging Utilization

PurposeDefensive medicine, broadly defined as medical practices that protect physicians from malpractice lawsuits without providing benefits to patients, can lead to wasteful use of health care resources and higher cost. Although physicians cite malpractice liability as an important factor driving their decisions to order imaging tests, little research has been done to examine the systematic impact of liability pressure on overall imaging. The authors examined the extent to which radiography use is influenced by malpractice liability pressure among office-based physicians. MethodsUsing National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 1999 to 2010, the authors used multivariate difference-in-difference logistic regression to examine the effects of different types of state tort reforms on the probability of radiography orders by primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. ResultsThe probability that a PCP ordered radiography decreased when states enacted permanent caps on noneconomic damages (−1.0%, P < .01), periodic payment reforms (−1.6%, P < .05), and the total number of tort reforms (−0.5%, P < .05). Specialist physicians were responsive to two reforms: caps on punitive damages (−6.1%, P < .01) and the total number of medical tort laws (−1.2%, P < .01). The passage of new indirect reforms was found to reduce radiography orders for PCPs (−1.8%, P < .05), and the repeal of indirect reforms was found to increase radiography orders for specialists (+3.4%, P < .01). ConclusionsState tort reform seems to reduce physicians’ ordering of radiography. This analysis also suggests that reforms that make it harder to sue physicians have a stronger impact than reforms that directly reduce physicians’ malpractice claim payments.