Like I said Attalus, you can cut off the sharks from getting the $$$$ by limiting how much of the punitive damages the plaintiff & lawyer walk away with. But, where there is real wrongdoing that is eggregious enough to merit punitive damages, the jury should be able to slap the Company, Doctor, Insurer, Auto Maker (whoever) with enough money to hurt them so they won't do it again and so others won't do it.
Plus, too much of a limit on recovery could have one very bad result: making lawyers not take cases
where there really is an injury and injustice. I'm all for limiting what my profession walks away with, and for limiting silly windfalls to plaintiffs, but I do not want to cut truly injured people off from getting legal help and justice.
Here's a thought. If IWF is an indication, the VAST majority of people don't like plaintiffs getting an unfair windfall from a lawsuit. I don't either. How come it happens, then?? And, I'll note that a "people are idiots" response is likely not the only reason - and again using 10K+ member IWF as a sample, I am beginning to doubt the "people are idiots" notion anyway. Why do juries award these amounts if we all hate it??
[edit] Oh, and I'm sorry for your past woes, Attalus.
I don't want to come off as unsympathetic. I hate being sued. And, for a 29-yr-old it has happened to often to me for my taste.
[ 03-14-2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]