What Is The Primary Purpose Of Punitive Damages?

Compensatory damages, I learned in class, are the out of pocket loss for injury, such as lack of work, medical bills, etc. This is a very set number in civil cases. Stern claimed the plaintiffs’ real property and personal property losses totaled $11 million. Stern also claimed $50,000 of damages for each plaintiff’s psychic impairment, totaling $64 million for 625 plaintiffs. Stern included psychic impairment as the most important element of their compensatory damage claim. Punitive damages, I learned in class, are a punishment for the defendant for pain and suffering inflicted. It is harder to put a set number to punitive damages. To receive punitive damages, Stern had to prove Pittston’s conduct was more than merely careless or negligent—that it was willful, wanton, or reckless—to punish Pittston and deter them from ever again harming the plaintiffs or others. A West Virginia Ad Hoc Commission of inquiry into the Buffalo Creek Flood found Pittston’s conduct to have been reckless. Therefore, Stern was able to use their findings as a reason to include punitive

Evaluate and discuss the potential liability (negligence or other torts) of the various parties in the scenario involving but not limited to Bobby, ACE Sports, the nurse, the surgeon and City General. (Avoid simply restating the facts/scenario. Incorporate them into your discussion.)

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

Yes, I agree with the court that the damage awarded in this case was arbitrary and reversed the State Appellate court decision. The Court held that the punitive award of $145 million was neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed, and it was consequently ruled an irrational, arbitrary, and unconstitutional deprivation of the property of the insurer. (Ethical and Legal Environment, 2011). This is like a punishment to defendant, since the defendant was held responsible for doing illegal act outside the state’s jurisdiction.

Almost every jurisdiction a person is responsible for all losses and damages that result from his or her negligence. With certain exceptions owners, people who handles pets, and people that harbor pets can be held responsible for injuries caused by their pet. Negligence is also defined as the lack or ordinary care. An example of an unreasonable action would be a dog owner letting go of his dogs leash when another dog approaches so that the dogs can play. An unreasonable action might be the failure to keep a dog away from guest when it is prone to play rough or knock people down. Negligence is also considered when an adult places a watchdog in the room with a sleeping infant. If a person fails to protect a visitor from a potentially dangerous pet this falls under the doctrine of premises liability. Landlords, landowners and management companies can be held liable and responsible to their tenants failing to get rid of a vicious animal. The final example with the ferret this is an example of negligence. Any animal has the potential to be vicious if it exposed to new people or feels threatened. So if the homeowners have company it is best to keep the ferret in a cage or in a room with the door closed to avoid possible injuries to their guest. If the pet owner follows all necessary precautions an incident occurs then they will not be liable for the incident if one occurs.

The issue in this case is whether under Tennessee Code Annotated § 44-8-413, our client, Kevin Gates, can be held responsible for his neighbor’s dog bite injuries, depending on his knowledge of the potentially “dangerous propensities” of his three dogs.

Preblich, on December 13, 1984, the plaintiff was driving through an alley behind his residence when he noticed that the lights of the defendants’ car were on. Through the back door of the house, he informed the defendant, and a friend of the defendant who had borrowed the car, that the lights were on. As the defendant’s friend opened the door of the home to go turn off the lights, the defendants two year old, thirty pound spaniel ran out the door and down the footpath towards the alleyway. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff walked down the footpath towards his car, the spaniel ran behind him, bumping into the back of the plaintiff's legs, causing him to lose his balance and fall. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff broke his wrist, and allegedly sustained back injuries. Boitz v. Preblich, 405 N.W.2d 907, 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). In this case, the court held that injuries inflicted by a dog outside the scope of a vicious attack are not, as a matter of law, excluded from coverage under the Minnesota dog owner's liability statute. The court reasoned that the statute does not indicate a limitation to vicious attacks, as the phrase "or injures" fully encompasses injuries other than those sustained by an attack. Id. at 910. The court also held that since the phrase “or injures” comprises injuries other than those from an attack, a dog owner may also be held liable under the Minnesota statute for injuries caused by the dog’s accidental or innocent

Comes Plaintiff, Constance Wolf F/K/A Constance Wolfgram, by counsel, and for her complaint states as follows:

21. The malicious and negligent conduct of Piper Reed was reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, harm to physical well-being and invasion of personal space and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages.

According to Burke (2005), four separate aspects of cognitive bias contributes to the-the maintenance of denial of new evidence in prosecutorial decision making: confirmation bias, selective information processing, belief perseverance, and the avoidance of cognitive dissonance. Confirmation bias leads people to seek and interpret information in a way that supports a view they already hold to be true. While selective bias leads information to be more easily remembered in a way that confirms their already held beliefs. Cognitive dissonance – the desire people have for consistency between their behavior and believes- leads them to adjust their beliefs to their previous behavior. Furthermore, belief perseverance leads people to fail to adjust their beliefs to new information, even when the new information proves that the basis for their previous beliefs was false. For example, believing that someone is the perpetrator even after DNA conclusively proves that´s incorrect. (p. 1593-1594, 1610).

The services of personal injury attorneys are sought when a person claims to have been physically or psychologically injured because of the negligence or incorrect actions of a third-party. The third-party could be another individual, a government, a company, corporation, business, school or any other entity. Personal injury attorneys specialize in an area of the law, known as Tort law. Tort law includes non-economic and economic injuries to a person's right, reputation and or property. It also includes civil actions. These attorneys are educated and trained in general law, and in all areas of the law, but they typically handle cases that are related to personal injuries or Tort law. They often handle injuries that result from a car or other

Alexis- Negligence and Intentional torts both contribute to the health industry. Negligence is something that most people sue for, and all health professionals should understand how to avoid these situations. For example: the physician should make sure he/she has a complete understanding about the individual medical need, before releasing them. By doing this they can avoid the chances of misdiagnosing or creating mire problems. Protecting the patients right is and should a mission for each health provider to avoid a potential law suit. All professional should be knowledgeable about the importance of intentional torts a how to avoid crossing that path. Fastidious discussion post for this module, keep up the good work.

“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own

What are the purposes of punishment? Which do you consider to be the most important and why?