MovieChat Forums > Hot Coffee (2011) Discussion > If liberals feel that punitive damages a...

If liberals feel that punitive damages are intended to send a message...

posted 11 years ago by Patrick_Bateman_777
16 replies | jump to latest

...then all punitive damages over say, $100K, should either go to charity or to some type of medical fund for the injured. In addition, lawyers fees should be capped.

I mean hey, punitive damages are just meant to send a message to evil corporations so why should anyone profit off of it?

The plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney should not see anything over $100k of the punitive damages.

So the "big scawy evil cowpowashun" still has to pay a huge amount (millions or hundreds of millions, it doesn't matter) but the plaintiff can only get up to $100,000 in punitive damages plus the actual monetary damages (medical bills, lost wages, etc) and the lawyer can only get his standard percentage (30%, 35%, 40% usually) of that amount plus a possible extra dispensation if a verified amount of extra hours were spent on the case going beyond what 30% of $100k would cover.

Any takers? Didn't think so. I guess this is just another disingenuous argument from the left. The left wants trial lawyers and plaintiffs to get rich off of these lawsuits, make no mistake about it. This is not just about "sending a message" to evil companies.

[–] HwajangshilAgashi 11 years ago

I would consider myself liberal, and I (nearly) whole-heartedly agree with you.
I just disagree in that I think the individual cap should be set at somewhere around $250,000, with the rest going to related charities.

All lawyer (and definitely put a cap of what lawyers can get, too!) and court costs should be paid by the company (if they are found guilty) in addition to any other monies they are ordered to pay.

[–] domotime2 11 years ago

Did you guys watch the documentary? What's with these arbitrary numbers? Who are you to decide how much a person should get? Why not just make it a case by case scenario and let juries decide?

Like the story about the disabled child. Putting a cap on how much that family should get is silly. The question is why do you even want a cap? I don't get the benefit

[–] daedalus1337 11 years ago

Who's the left to decide how much profit corporations can keep? Same idea.

[–] domotime2 11 years ago

I don't understand that comment? what does that have to do with this?

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Apparently nothing since he never came back to defend his position.

[–] bluekrush 11 years ago

Punitive damages is not a liberal concept. Punitive damages were created with the idea to make companies change the way they do things and it has been effective. Everyone knows what they are intended for not just liberals.

[–] cash_carstar 11 years ago

'Cept it's not really that effective. At least not these days. Many big corporations consider it more cost effective to break the law or generally do the wrong thing as it is cheaper than doing the right thing.

Was it Goldman Sachs that just paid out for their part in the 08 economic crisis. The payout constituted 3 days of business for them. Shocking that these banks are back to doing the same $hit that caused the collapse. Why wouldn't they?

"That's what a gym teacher once told me."

[–] JRichardSingleton 10 years ago

N lawyer would volunteer hundreds of hours of their time to push a case where they cannot get paid. Would you accept a job where you won't get paid at all?

jrichardsingleton.blogspot.com

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

Any takers? Didn't think so.

This was my favorite part of your post. How could there have been any takers WHILE YOU WERE WRITING THE POST?

Keep watching your Fox news, getting fatter and dumber, and telling everyone how easily YOU could fix America even though you have no actual skills and work in a box factory in Retard, Iowa.

[–] superhet 9 years ago

It's not "liberals" who have awarded punitive damages. It's been juries comprised of local citizens. And if you think a jury is likely to be "liberal" in Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska, or Texas (some of the states mentioned in this film), then you just don't know America.

[–] relytj321 8 years ago

Where is it etched in stone that punitive damages are solely intended to "send a message"?

If you were a car maker that *knew* your car design had a flaw that made the car burst into flames if it were bumped from behind and you did nothing to correct it, shouldn't a person who suffered life altering damages from that be entitled to slap your hand? You should have to do more than pay that person's medical bills. A person who is blinded, suffers brain damage, 3rd degree burns, and on & on, they *do* deserve punitive damages. They *do* deserve something beyond their medical bills being covered. You dang right they do.

You're like the talking heads in this movie who spouted nothing but "the courts are full of frivolous lawsuits!" The McDonald's coffees suit is a perfect example. The facts of that case were terribly distorted and fed to the American public so that most everyone had no idea what the facts were.

Do frivolous lawsuits happen? Sure they do. But to say they "clog our courts" is just a horrible conclusion to come to. And it's doubly sad that someone elected president of the United States was duped into believing that.

It is pretty difficult to bring a lawsuit and get it all the way through the courts and be successful. Do you honestly that a jury of 12 of your peers are just idiots?

The absolute vast majority of United States citizens who bring lawsuits aren't doing it to get rich. They simply want someone held accountable for the wrong committed.

[–] The_Boxing_Cat 8 years ago

Also, have you ever been stressed out to the point of clinical depression? That can be a living HELL, and that's exactly can what happen to someone who's been wronged. They deserve compensation.

[–] TwoLastTimes 7 years ago

Where is it etched in stone that punitive damages are solely intended to "send a message"?

No where, the OP was just attempting a straw man because it was all he had.

[–] JRichardSingleton 8 years ago

Though I agree that the original verdict was outrageous, no lawyer would take a case knowing that he would get a fraction of any winnings, since the lawyer is the one sacrificing his time to represent the injured. It's a gamble.

You don't hear about all the cases where the ambulance chaser lose. That's why.

www.jrichardsingleton.blogspot.com