Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

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

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"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?

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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

Because a limit on punitive damages that would be reasonable for Jim
Fisher's
computer business is poket change for McDonald's. You have to be able to
assess
damages in the billions or they won't be punitive for some companies.

Where did I say a dollar amount?