Tim Scott: “we keep hearing these generalities about excessive awards, but we do not hear specific cases that outraged juries so…”

“we keep hearing these generalities about excessive awards, but we do not hear specific cases that outraged juries so much that they actually awarded punitive damages. We have to put this amendment in the context of the other amendments that we have already had and recognize punitive damages are designed to be high enough to protect society from a corporate calculation that it is easier to pay the damages for somebody injured, maimed or killed, than it is to correct the situation. Earlier today we talked about the situation with flammable pajamas where the court found that the corporation knew that the pajamas--that newsprint burned only slightly faster than the pajamas. Because of the punitive damages, children can now go to bed safely knowing they are not wearing these things. In the context of loser pays and a separate trial for punitive damages, this amendment would essentially remove any incentive that a plaintiff would have to go after punitive damages, thereby removing the safety valve that others will enjoy by virtue of the fact that corporations are afraid of these punitive damages.”