Robspe Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I'm bothered by the fact that, if the drug company had been smaller and less wealthy, the "punishment" for the same supposed negligent act would have been smaller. Leaving aside whether the money will ever be paid or not, this seems a disincentive to prosper and increase one's wealth. Didn't I read about some country that charged drivers different amounts of money as a fine for exactly the same traffic offense, depending on their income and assets? That's where this is leading. Presumably, one without income or assets would get off scot-free. What's left to discourage misbehavior? Prison for debt? And one cannot overlook the fact that the money isn't really going to come out of the pockets of the drug company, but from their customers, shareholders and creditors, especially if the judgment should drive the company into bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovenstein Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 Maybe there's hope for Merck after all: Major victory for Merck in N.J. Vioxx trial Odden, regarding your earlier point about jurors being unqualified, isn't it sad that sometimes judges may be unqualified to handle a particular case? A general counsel for the NCAA recently came to my class. She said that there was a judge she had (I can't remember which case, though I think it may have been the recent NCAA/NIT litigation) who didn't even know what a March Madness bracket was. Not that everyone should know what a March Madness bracket is, but if you're going to preside over a major piece of complicated litigation, shouldn't you know one of the most basic things about the industry involved?? Hmm, sounds like fodder for a thread on judicial qualifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 I find it telling that the jurors in NJ asked thoughtful, science-related questions, while the TX jurors admitted to "not listening" to all the science stuff and adjudicating based on "sympathy" for the plaintiff. And what's up with Merck's lead council and the judge? <fangs> -Q PS - What's a 'March Madness bracket?' <wink> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 Odden, regarding your earlier point about jurors being unqualified, isn't it sad that sometimes judges may be unqualified to handle a particular case?Pathetic behavior aplenty. I'm not sure I agree that it's important for a judge to know what a March Madness bracket is. Let's change that a bit: should a judge presiding over a Vioxx case need to have medical knowledge? Should a judge presiding over a murder case that depends on DNA evidence know basic statustics and genetics? I guess my concern with jurors is not that they lack specialised forensic knowledge, but that they are not intellectually armed to apply the law literally to a set of facts. As long as that apply a decent set of moral values in place of the law, I would be less concerned, but the problem is that I don't totally trust them to do that. Anyhow, it's good that this one turned out right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) According to this Bloomberg article, the SCOTUS (and state law) are keeping a lid on high punitive damage awards. Punitive damages in the 50 biggest verdicts fell to $1.6 billion in 2007 from $1.8 billion in 2006 and $5 billion in 2005, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. ... ... The largest 50 verdicts in all types of U.S. lawsuits, including both punitive and actual damages, rose to $6.9 billion in 2007 from $6.3 billion in 2006. ... ... In the past two decades, 22 states including Texas, Ohio and Virginia capped punitive damages, according to the American Tort Reform Association, which supports limits. U.S. Supreme Court decisions brought other restrictions. Edited January 15, 2008 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.