On the one hand, in order to safeguard society from unacceptable activities that frequently damage people and property, our legislatures adopt laws that specify crimes and their penalties, which may include fines as well as jail. On the other hand, the main goal of our civil tort law is to compensate people who experience harm that was unjustly brought about by others with monetary damages. An actor may be both criminally punished and civilly sued for damages based on the same occurrences, depending on the circumstances. Although most torts are not also crimes, many crimes are also torts, which is excellent news because most of us will be involved in both. Why then do we permit the imposition of punitive damages in civil tort cases where the fact-finder, whether a judge or jury, deems them acceptable in addition to real damages? Why are punitive damages ever permitted in the first place? Should the administration of punishment for wrongdoing, as opposed to payment of damages, be left to the government through the criminal justice system or possibly industry regulators? Should the mere fact that he filed the lawsuit be enough for him to "hit the jackpot" and retain a sizable sum in punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages for genuine loss suffered?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The concept of punitive damages in civil tort cases raises important questions regarding the purpose of imposing additional financial penalties on top ... View the full answer