Many supporters and critics alike of state-level punitive damage caps might be inclined to predict that such caps will be more commonly enacted after large and noteworthy awards. However, Jonathan Klick (Pennsylvania) and Catherine Sharkey (NYU) examine data and find little detectable correlation of this kind, raising that possibility that state lawmakers enact them more as a prophylactic than as a palliative; indeed, state legal cultures in which high awards are endemic might prove equally if not more resistant to caps than states in which they are rare. An incidental but arresting finding: Republican-party vs. Democratic-party control of the lawmaking process may make less difference in outcomes than most would assume. [SSRN via TortsProf]
Klick and Sharkey, "What Drives the Passage of Damage Caps?"
- Zippers, penis injuries, and McDonald's hot coffee redux
- Zippers and McDonald's hot coffee
- Does Fisher matter?
- HRT punitive damages before Pennsylvania Supreme Court
- Does medical malpractice liability lead to better quality health care?
- Missouri Supreme Court strikes down noneconomic damage caps in med mal cases
- $48 million jackpot justice asbestos award for 86-year-old
- Around the web, May 1
- The problems of product liability
- CJD still lying about hot coffee
- Spirited med-mal debate complete!
- New Featured Discussion: MI and Cato scholars debate med-mal
- Another lawless jackpot award over propofol in Nevada
- Around the web, August 22
- $322M verdict for phantom asbestosis