Punitive damages

trial in 1963. Yuba produced a tool called the Shopsmith, a saw, drill, and wood lathe all in one. This tool, even when assembled correctly, caused injuries so it was brought to court. The plaintiffs (or the ones bringing the case to court) won large damages to compensate for the injuries caused, This case was the precedent to what we recognize as tort law (Aliprandini and Walter

What Are Punitive Damages In Personal Injury Cases? You may have heard of punitive damages being awarded in a high-profile court case, but they are not actually awarded as frequently as you may have been lead to believe. If you wanted to know if you could receive punitive damages in your personal injury case, you need to understand what they are. When It is Possible To Receive Punitive Damages Punitive damages are reserved for situations where the defendant’s actions were reprehensible, and deserve

Punitive damages should be awarded in some cases, and are justified in some cases. The primary purpose of punitive damages is to punish a wrongdoer and is not because of a breach of contract. Courts also may award a punitive damage if an intentional tort is done, to causes harm. Especially, if a person intentionally injures a neighbor’s pets that are playing, in their neighbors own backyard. By hitting it with a rock that causes harm to the animal. In this case, I feel that a punitive damage should

Bornstein, 2001). The critics of the system argue that jury damage awards are highly unpredictable and

Tort reform is an extremely debatable topic in the political & legal fields. By definition, tort reform refers to, “The proposed changes made in the civil justice system that directly reduces tort litigation or damages.” Generally, when someone mentions tort reform to an everyday normal person who is not familiar with legalese, they don’t have any idea of what the term “tort reform” is. Throughout this, one will understand through the three interviews conducted that two out of three people don’t

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision. The facts in the Liebeck case start with the incident description as recounted by Aric Press in the March

20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000. This lawsuit had impact on

legislature to pass through the White House and become law by financing their campaigns and helping the candidates to win elections. One of those laws was the caps on punitive damages through tort reform. The first case that is discussed is Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests or “Hot Coffee” as it is well known for. Stella Liebeck suffered immense burn damage on her thighs when a coffee from McDonald spilled over her legs. She needed a surgical operation called skin graft, where a piece of healthy skin is transplanted

not being able to use handheld devices while operating a train or they did not make any efforts to ensure that the engineer is following the rules. The engineer is primarily liable because he is an independent contractor and he is liable for the damages that occurred because of this accident. The employer might be liable because it is against the law to use handheld devices while operating the train, and the employer should not only require the independent contractors to follow the regulations, but

they could settle the other case and secure the $2.9 million fee and cost reimbursement in that case. The jury returned a verdict for Young of $394,000 in compensatory damages as a result of Becker & Poliakoff’s breach of fiduciary duty. The total compensatory damages consisted of $144,000 in past lost wages and $250,000 in damages for