That's kind of a cheap shot. We have no idea what will be the ultimate result of tort reform. You're using an extreme and hypothetical example to characterize a much broader immearuably more complex initiative--an initiative that just about everyone who's not a lawyer supports. Is a specific dollar amount or cap appropriate? Do those caps apply if gross negligence, in which case most likely criminal negligence, is found? Most likely not.

alaska is about as strong a republican state as there is. most alaskans support oil drilling, especially because they get checks every year of about (iirc) $1000 from all the profits they rake in. i think theyre republican because alaskas filled with white people from the lower 48. the three northern canadian territories have a lot more aboriginals, and if it werent for those hippies in bc, we would probably be the most left leaning part of canada (and thats really saying something in canada).

OK, how about a Doctor who amputates the wrong foot. People who are not lawyers are buying into the hype about "Rich Trial Lawyers," what they don't realize is that Trial Lawyers are your last line of defense from big business, et al, running roughshod over you and leaving you with nothing.

Old guy runs a stoplight, hits my friend's car, cracks his vertebrae, player has to have spinal fusion surgery, live with debilitating pain for the rest of his life, possibly hurting his future earnings potential, and the dude's INSURANCE COMPANY is only on the hook for a max of $250K?

Trucker comes accross the median and plows into my dad's rental car. Homeboy breaks his hip. Can't run, can't walk w/o a cane (and he's a TOUGH old bastard, Ranger, helo pilot, etc...) his quality of life has been severely damaged, and because of joint stiffness, he has to curtail his travel, which earns him a good amount more a year. And the Trucking company, and their insurers are gonna get a $250K cap on punitive damages?

This is the thing PUNITIVE damages are there to punish companies, people, etc... for their behavior. They need to be high, because this will make them not do it again. And we well know hitting these bastards in their pocket books is the only way to get their attention.

Sorry, for calling you out by name, though. That was innapropriate, but you are the most identified on this board with being pro-policies such as this. (I know Dalen voted for Bush, but I haven't heard him talk about anything of this nature)

Again, you're focusing on the dollar amount. I have no idea what is the appropriate level.

My views on this: there is a difference between compensatory and punitive damages. Your dad who can't travel and is losing livelihood should have recourse to this loss, UNDER COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. Pain and suffering, as well, I consider to be compensatory. I have no problems allowing a jury or a judge to decide the level of pain/suffering incurred--the lingering arthritis and curtailing of an active lifestyle warrants lots of compensation, in my view.

Punitive is different. This is not compensation for what you've lost, this is punishment for what the other party did. There should be limits, much like sentencing guidelines.

There's got to be a balance. Compensatory damages should ensure that people are compensated for what they've lost--not just economic but quality of life (including pain and suffering). This loss should be judged by the courts, preferrably by a jury. No one should get screwed, the law being a shield and not a sword, dyaddada yaddada.

Like I said before, it's a terribly complex issue that is currently too far open to abuse by both sides.

BTW, I did *not* vote for Bush, but I think you already knew that.

And sentencing guidelines work so well, just ask folks in NY who are subject to the Rockerfeller laws, or anyone nailed under Michigans 650-Lifer laws...

I think that there are some fixes that should be implemented, but a capped amount of punitive damages does nothing to prevent companies from truning around and doing the same thing again.

If Exxon gets nailed for $1billion for Valdez, you can be damn sure that they will worry about who's piloting their barges. If they get nailed with $250,000 then old Joe can get snockered on Gin and play slalom with icebergs, while clubbing baby harp seals.

Like I said, it is to keep companies in line, and force their hands to fix their products, etc... Why recall something that would cost $1billion if all of the suits added together at $250K a pop only comes up to $500Million?

See what I'm getting at?

I think we're on the same page. You're totally correct that punitive damages have to represent effective punishment. This implies some kind of scale, given an offendor's capacity to absorb punishment (e.g. a 10 minute timeout for a three year old may be effective, but it ain't gonna work for a teenager). The intensity of the punishment should also be commensurate with the transgression and the amount of tort.

As for your Exxon example, how much was the company at fault, and how much was the Valdez an accident faciliated by an individual's, not the corporation's, actions? Yes, you can nail Exxon for screening programs, etc. much like the airlines ended up doing to protect against drunk and hung-over pilots. But at the time, Exxon was doing nothing different from Amoco, Shell, etc. Because they were the company unlucky enough to have the accident, they bear the entire punishment for their industry's accepted practices?

So yes, I see what you're getting at, and I don't disagree. I also recognize that the issue is not black and white, and will require a series of trials (all puns intended) and errors before a good solution is reached.

Funny, I figured we would agree to disagree...But we seem to be on the same page.

I have to worry about this type of shit, because so many of these guys are so good to the campaigns I run. And I agree with them most of the time.

To the esteemed Senator from, um, er, Indialabama...

What do you think of the Haley Barbour and the tort reforms next door?