Punitive Measures Legal Definition
It is hoped that the payment of an amount beyond damages will deter him and others from committing similar misdeeds in the future. In the case of a personal injury claim, punitive damages may be added to the damages that cover the victim`s medical bills, hospitalization costs, property damage and other expenses. Higher punitive damages may also be awarded if non-economic damages are difficult to calculate, if the injuries are difficult to detect and could result in ongoing care, or if the defendant`s conduct is extraordinarily offensive. Regardless of the award, the defendant will always receive reasonable notice of the amount of punitive damages and the conduct that warrants the award. In BMW of North America, Inc.c. Gore (1996), the court held that excessive punishment may amount to arbitrary confiscation of property in violation of due process. The court held that punitive damages must be proportionate, depending on the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct that caused the plaintiff`s damages, the relationship between punitive damages and damages, and any comparable criminal or civil penalties applicable to the conduct. In the State Farm car. In. c.
Campbell (2003), the Court held that punitive damages can only be based on the defendant`s actions that harm the plaintiffs. The Court also explained the factors that courts must apply when reviewing a criminal judgment in accordance with the principles of due process. With respect to a primary representation relationship, courts are reluctant to award the client punitive damages for the agent`s reckless actions. An exception to this preference is when the customer promotes or causes the agent to be reckless. Proponents of the payment of punitive damages also claim that these surcharges serve a function of compensation. While a plaintiff may receive actual damages for injuries sustained, many of the plaintiff`s actual losses, including those involving non-pecuniary damages, are not compensable under the compensation liability rules. Punitive damages help the plaintiff to be cured again. The Kyoto Protocol provided for punitive measures for parties that fail to meet their targets and would therefore be punished: the enforcement body of the Compliance Committee may require a Party to develop a compliance action plan or suspend a Party or exclude it from eligibility for flexibility mechanisms.
In all cases, the executing agency shall make a public statement that the Party is not complying with the rules and shall also publish the applicable consequences. More recently, in Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007), the Court held that punitive damages cannot be imposed for direct harm caused to others by misconduct, but may consider harm to others as a function for determining reprehensibility. More reprehensible misconduct warrants higher punitive damages, just as a repeat offender may be punished with a harsher criminal law penalty. Judge John Paul Stevens, who disagreed in williams, noted that the “nuance escapes me,” suggesting that the majority had resolved the case with a distinction that makes no difference. The Supreme Court of the United States, in BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 519, 116 p.
Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996) also developed guidelines for the assessment of punitive damages. The court noted that the “degree of representativeness of the defendant`s conduct” is the most important indicator of the appropriateness of measuring punitive damages. The court also measured the possible excess of punitive damages by applying a relationship between the plaintiff`s damages and the amount of punitive damages. In National By-Products Inc. v. Searcy House Moving Co., the Arkansas Supreme Court found that the award of punitive damages requires proof that the defendant intentionally committed an unlawful act after knowing that the act was likely to cause harm.
Since they are usually paid in addition to the plaintiff`s demonstrable violations, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, if the defendant`s conduct was extremely insidious. As a general rule, punitive damages cannot be awarded in contractual disputes. The main exception is bad faith insurance claims in the United States where the insurer`s breach of contract is allegedly so egregious that it constitutes a violation of the “implied duty of good faith and fair trade” and is therefore considered an unlawful cause of action giving rise to punitive damages (exceeds the value of the insurance policy). [5] The controversy over punitive damages is likely to continue because it concerns fundamental issues of justice, fairness and the common good. In Japan, medical negligence and other types of negligence are subject to the Penal Code, which can impose much harsher penalties than civil law. For example, many legal remedies that would subject a defendant to potential punitive damages in the United States would put the same person in Japan in jail. Proponents of punitive damages believe that this type of compensation performs a number of important societal functions, including retaliation, deterrence, compensation, and lawsuits. Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, may be awarded by the Trier to the fact (a jury or judge if a jury has been waived) in addition to actual damages that compensate a plaintiff for the losses he suffered as a result of the harm caused by the defendant. Punitive damages are a means of punishing the defendant in a civil suit and are based on the theory that the interests of the company and the aggrieved person can be satisfied by imposing additional damages on the defendant.
Since the 1970s, punitive damages have been criticized by U.S. business and insurance groups, which claim that exorbitant payments of punitive damages have driven up the cost of doing business. Punitive damages have been called “quasi-criminal” because they are halfway between criminal and civil law. Although they are granted to a plaintiff in a private civil suit, they are not compensatory and have the nature of a fine. In very few industries, punitive damages could be awarded in contractual or tortious cases, with the exception of a tort relevant to fraud or product defect. Article 49 of the Law of the People`s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, promulgated in October 1993, provides that every consumer is entitled to recovery of twice the purchase price of the goods or services from the seller or service provider against fraud. Positive cases have been widely reported in this regard. Critics also argue that the vagueness of the standards for determining the defendant`s liability for punitive damages and for calculating the arbitral award itself causes jurors to make decisions based on passion, bias and prejudice, rather than on the basis of the law. Vagueness in terms of recklessness, intent or gratuitousness leads critics to conclude that juries have no meaningful and objective means of making an informed decision.
Many States have recognized this criticism and have developed various procedures to fully and accurately instruct jurors and require the court of first instance to assess the sufficiency of the evidence before awarding punitive damages and to provide written reasons why the sentence was or was not deserved in the light of legal standards. Some contracts list certain “lump sum damages” as a result of a breach. However, a court may choose to ignore this clause if the liquidated damages are in fact punitive damages. There is a 2-part test that courts usually use to determine whether to apply a lump sum damages clause: punitive damages are inherently subjective. Since their purpose is to punish – rather than compensate – opinions on how to achieve this will vary greatly from juror to juror. In any event, research on punitive damages has revealed some common principles. The defendant`s assets are positively correlated with high punitive damages payments. [26] Jurors downplay or ignore the jury`s instructions regarding the determination of punitive damages. [27] and jurors tend to punish defendants who have conducted a cost-benefit analysis. [28] For more information on punitive damages, see this note from the Yale Law Journal and the Rview note from the University of Minnesota Law.
Critics also point out that deterrent justification is compromised when defendants are insured against punitive damages. If a government employee is held responsible for misconduct and punitive damages are awarded, taxpayers must pay for the compensation. Taxpayers are innocent parties, which makes it inappropriate for them to bear the penalty for the actions of a government employee. See the full definition of punishment in the dictionary of English language learners However, there are exceptions. If a defendant`s actions are particularly reprehensible, if the plaintiff`s harm is greater than the punitive damages claimed, or if the amounts awarded in comparable cases are higher, higher punitive damages may be awarded. Article 96 of the In February 2009, the PRC Law on Food Safety increases punitive damages to ten times the purchase price, which is in addition to the compensation that the victim has already claimed from the producer or seller for poor quality food that does not meet food safety standards. Such a high legal amount, reviewed by the legislative body, is based on several extremely serious incidents related to food quality over the past two years, such as the infamous case of milk powder contaminated with Sanlu. Proponents believe that the most important function, punitive damages, is deterrence. As in criminal law, the predominant purpose of punitive damages is to prevent similar misconduct in the future. .