"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.

Yup!

Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior.

Not necessarily.

Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

Why would that be "sensible"? I've heard two or three people claim it, but
no one has substantiated it.

A case could be made that that would breed the same "lining up at the
through".

If you wreck my car, and I have to take off days from work to get it, and
myself, fixed how would you determine "actual damages"?

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?