Should Courts Routinely Award Punitive Damages
Torts are civil wrongs - meaning whether intentional (assualt, battery, trespass, etc.) or unintentional (negligence), individuals and/or property has been
damage. Punitive damages are rarely awarded unless the tort is egregious. The rationale is that making the victim whole is the goal. Because torts are
inherently wrong, should this judicial policy be changed? In other words, should courts routinely award punitive damages for two possible reasons: 1)
to punish the tortfeasor their actions; and 2) deter those inclined to commit torts with punitive damages?
In your post, address both sides of the issue. Do so concisely and make sure that you address both sides of the issue. You must post your take and
comment on the post of at least one other student. Although you are free to do research, you may not use the aid of another human or the internet in
the wriiting of your post and/or comments. Doing so is considered cheating.
This discussion is worth up to 5 points. If you wow me, you might earn extra credit points. The discussion closes on February 9 at 11:59 pm.
