A question for lawyers on DU...

[newtothegame]

Do you know if state or federal legislatures have ever considered redirecting punitive damages to charity?

Trial lawyers claim punitive damages are designed to send other like businesses a warning to avoid the behavior that got the defendant business in trouble. Fine, I get that.

But if that's the case, why does this money need to go to the plaintiff and lawyers? The jury already achieved that court's goal of "making them whole" when they assigned specific damages based on harm done to the plaintiff. Why then do the plaintiff and their lawyer need millions in punitive damages on top of that?

Just imagine if the millions in punitive damages went to grant wishes for Make-A-Wish? Or to the National Cancer institute to fund research?

Am I out of my mind or would something like this work?

ed for sp

[AngryAmish]

1. Yes.

However, one third of that is my fee and I want to keep that.

[TygrBright]

2. Which charity? Who gets to decide? The Heritage Foundation is a charity.

So are churches.

The concept is fraught with opportunities for hideous abuse.

skeptically,
Bright

[newtothegame]

3. I understand. But the legal system now is setup for hideous abuse BECAUSE there's nothing like this

What lawyer wouldn't pursue a case, regardless of the merits, if he/she got a huge chunk of millions in punitive damages?

[blondeatlast]

7. Define "hideous abuse" or offer an example, please. nt

[spanone]

10. there is always a chance of losing the case in which you have much invested

[treestar]

11. Meritless cases supposedly get defense verdicts.

YOu're assuming the juries always pay out huge chunks of money, even on crappy cases.

The system has its own discipline. Crappy cases would supposedly result in defense verdicts. Smart lawyers wouldn't take those on a contingency basis.

the insurance company lawyers work on an hourly basis, and they drag the case out - so the risk is great. Trial lawyer would be dumb to spend a lot of time on crappy cases.

[blondeatlast]

13. Tort lawyers generally work on contingency fee bases. They won't take a case

they don't think they can get a good settlement on. What you likely don't realize is that many cases are taken on and never reach court--the vast majority of people only want fair compensation; oftentimes only a few thousand dollars or even less.

[Hosnon]

20. Any lawyer watching the bottom line/with half a brain.

Contingency cases (which most of these kinds of cases are) require large infusions of cash on the part of the lawyer/law firm. Bad cases generally aren't accepted.

[Pithlet]

4. Why shouldn't the plaintiffs get it?

Is there a reason why they shouldn't?

[former9thward]

5. Damages are considered just that - damages

They go to the person(s) who were damaged. Charities aren't being damaged in the case.

[WheelWalker]

6. Here's what Oregon does...

that law being a bone thrown to the tort reform lobby, in lieu of a cap on puny's. (Incidentally, a previous $500,000 non-economic damage award cap was found to violate the state constitution).

In practice, the fact that a jury VERDICT makes the State a judgment creditor, seriously complicates negotiations to settle a damage award after verdict but before entry of judgment. Quite often there are good and legitimate reasons for the prevailing party to compromise a jury's award prior to entry of judgment (for example, in an agreement with the losing party to forego appeals or bankruptcy), but the state is generally indisposed to give up any portion of their windfall.

ON EDIT: Forgot the link.... https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/31.735

[Laelth]

8. Plaintiffs' lawyers lose money on most of their cases.

If they don't win, they make nothing, yet they still spend a lot of money (in overhead, labor, and time) to get that nothing. When they settle, they usually take a small loss or make a little money, but not a lot. Only having a chance for a big payoff keeps Plaintiffs' lawyers in business.

If you want to live in a world where only rich people can have their rights vindicated because only rich people an afford to pay their attorneys, then go ahead and divert the big payoffs to charity. If you did that, the Plaintiffs' bar would fold.

-Laelth

[treestar]

9. The lawyers wouldn't be motivated

On a contingency fee, and that's a gamble for the lawyer (verdict could come in at zero, so all that time for no pay) and the case to be made for the punitive damages - that part of the case - there's no reason for the lawyer to spend time on it if they will not get paid for it no matter how it turns out.

Probably not talking about that much money overall either. It may be easier for the charities to get regular donations. They'd have to find the cases. And which charity should get them.

The plaintiff is not entirely undeserving, as they were injured in an incident bad enough to warrant punitive damages. So they are getting pain and suffering for the horrid nature of Defendant's conduct. If someone injures you due to regular negligence, at least you know they didn't mean to hurt you.

[msanthrope]

12. Why are you doubting the jury system?

The jury that heard the case has assigned punitives for a reason. Why do you think you know better?

[Recursion]

14. In terms of their purpose, it doesn't matter where they go

As long as it goes away from the company that was found to have been liable. The government could take the cash and set it on fire and the purpose of punitive damages would still be served. So in that sense it doesn't really matter where they go.

[newtothegame]

15. That was kind of my point. I'm truly not suggesting that we rob the plaintiff or lawyers...

of what's rightfully theirs, but I didn't think that punitive damages were setup to be "rigthfully" anybody's. I thought punitive damages were a punishment, plain and simple.

[blondeatlast]

17. So carrying your argument further--who determines who should get the damages?

Do you really want the justice system determining that?

A committee of "concerned citizens"?

as someone pointed out above, the Heritage Foundation is considered a charity under incorporation law--are they eligible? What about Bob Jones University? The National Rifle Association? they all have tax-exempt status...

[Pithlet]

19. This makes no sense. So, just throw it up into the air and who ever catches it first wins?

It does seem that you are suggesting depriving them. Punitive damages are indeed meant as punishment. But why would they go to anyone else but the plaintiff, who suffered the damage?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

18. It has happened, but as you say, it's a stipulation made by the plaintiff, not

a judgment or a jury choice.

[SheilaT]

21. Really dumb idea.

As several others have already pointed out, we liberal types would be miffed if a right-wing charity got the money, as would the right-wingers be miffed if the charity selected were a left-leaning one.

Juries do not give out huge multi-million dollar awards as readily as popular mythology would have it. And even the very large awards are almost always lowered by the judge.

IMHO so many are egregiously wronged by arrogant asshole corporations, that the very few who do sue and get punitive damages deserve what they can get. You forget that the vast majority of potential cases never even get filed, and the very vast majority of the ones that are actually filed never go to trial and are settled out of court.

[david13]

22. I don't think it needs to be a lawyer to answer this question. But

I think the damages (punitive)must needs go to the plaintiff; they are made whole only in the sense that the bills are paid; the punishment is because the defendant did whatever to this plaintiff. It was this plaintiff who suffered whatever it was, and all the things, the inconvenience, the time, the agony, etc., that went with it.
Thus, to punish by having them accountable to someone else indeed makes no sense whatsoever, and, ergo, you are out of your mind! Nah, just joking.
But.
dc