Sure thing. So how much is a lost arm or life worth? How much is poisoning my water worth? Should only the local government be compensated by a corporation if they poisoned the things that the individuals in the community consumed?

I'm sure there wouldn't be any beauracracy, either.

Oh, by the way, the president already made this suggestion, essentially, when he decided no doctor should be held liable for damages beyond $250k for malpractice. Nice to know life is so cheap!

Having been the parent of a child who was rendered quadriplegic by a convicted careless motorist and legally awarded a totally inadequate sum for expensive medical maintanance I can comprehend some of the problems. Instead of a lump sum which may or may not prove adequate over time, the law could specify that all medical costs for the injury should be paid as they accrue for the life of the injured person. That way medical liability, at least, could be sensibily covered whether or not the pain and suffering is ever compensated for.

I think the proposal is trying to distinguish between punitive and compensatory damages, and suggests that punitive damages should not go to individual or class plaintiffs, but to some public good, perhaps after payment of legal fees. Commendable, and worth considering and perhaps amending. There are drawbacks, illustrated perhaps by Judge Posner's opinion upholding an award of punitive damages to an individual plaintiff for having to deal with hotel bedbugs. See Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2003). A standard principle of penal theory is that the punishment should fit the crime in the sense of being proportional to the wrongfulness of the defendant's action, though the principle is modified when the probability of detection is very low or the crime is potentially lucrative.

The whole point of civil court is to restore an party who has suffered due to an action of another that does not threaten society as a whole to his original position.

Thus, plaintiffs should still be given the damages (since it doesn't restore somebody if the money is given to someone else). The sticky issue is how to calculate the damages for certain cases involving 'emotional harm' and such, and clearly, sometimes figures that are not appropriate are arrived at.

Litigiousness is encouraged by not awarding costs to the respondent should he be successful in defending against the suit. If the plaintiff were automatically liable for the cost of the respondent's defense should the suit fail, I would suggest there would be a substantial decrease in frivolous suits. Those launching this type of suit recognize the "nuisance factor" and trust (hope) that the respondent will pay them off to just go away.

So, who defines "frivolous?" The plaintiff? If a giant multinational corporation makes a product that harms a consumer, or a small group of consumers, shall we trust the corporation's lawyers to determine the ensuing lawsuit is "frivolous," because only a handful of people are affected?I'm allergic to strawberries (bummer, I know). If I eat a fruit pie containing strawberries, I'm in deep trouble. If the fruit pie is labelled as containing "natural fruit flavors," it's just as potentially deadly as one labelled as containing "natural strawberry flavors." If I eat the one containing "natural fruit flavors," will my survivors be accused of filing a "frivolous" wrongful death suit?I read food labels with a vengeance, but they do often leave out vitally important information, like "this product is harmless to everyone but YOU."

To some extent, this idea of capping/diverting punitive damage awards already exists. The jurors often don't realize it, but verdicts are subject to post-trial motions to reduce the amounts awarded. So even if the jury awards $500M for the hot coffee, the judge knocks it down to $37k or something afterwards. And then that amount can be reduced further on appeal. You hear abou the $500M award in the news, you don't hear 2 months later that it was reduced, so there is a mis-preception of "lottery" type verdicts. Recent Supreme Court cases have trended towards capping punitive damages based on a multiplier of 6x or 8x of the "actual" damages. Google the long and bitter battles over the award from the Exxon Valdez oil spill to see how judgment awards can be drastically reduced on appeal.

I agree with Albertan to a certain extent. If there were costs assessed against the loser, it could discourage frivolous suits.

Or, why not give each person a defined number of rights to sue (2 or 3?)? It would be a sort of property right. As there would be a limited amount, folks would need to choose wisely before filing suit. There is a certain segment of the population who would not use theirs, but could be allowed to sell their right to others. This may defeat the purpose of the system.

I realize another drawback would be the very unfortunate person who has multiple occurences of bad luck. If they have sued the first two times, it would be a shame for the third offender to have no consequences for his/her actions. Maybe the sale of litigous rights would make sense then.