Elizabeth Furse: “Mr. Chairman, my amendment lifts this bill's caps on punitive damages because the cap in this bill discriminates against…”

“Mr. Chairman, my amendment lifts this bill's caps on punitive damages because the cap in this bill discriminates against women, children, retirees, and low-wage workers. My amendment does not change the high standards of proof needed to get punitive damages. What are punitive damages? They are damages the court sets as a punishment for conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of others. In the few cases where they have been awarded, just 15 nationwide in 1994, they have proved to be effective. They have caused important changes in articles that people use or come in contact with, and these changes have saved lives. This Republican bill for the very first time ties punitive damages to economic damages in such a way that it discriminates because it sets these punitive damages in such a way that injuring a rich person is punished more heavily than injuring a poor person. I ask Members, is that fair? Is that the American way of justice? Under the Republican bill, the punishment of a conscious indifference to the safety of a person whose economic damages were $1 million could be capped at $3 million. Yet the punishment for the same conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of a person whose economic damages were only $10,000 would be capped at $250,000. Why? Why would we do that?”