Show simple item record

Why There is No Defense of Punitive Damages

dc.contributor.authorViscusi, W. Kip
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-27T17:59:32Z
dc.date.available2013-11-27T17:59:32Z
dc.date.issued1998
dc.identifier.citation87 Geo. L.J. 381 (1998-1999)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/5738
dc.description.abstractMy analysis of punitive damages in environmental and products liability cases concludes that these awards impose substantial costs on society, and that abolishing punitive damages would improve social welfare. The two commentaries on my proposal are written by prominent proponents of punitive damages. Professor Luban has been a leading advocate of punitive damages as a form of punishment, and Professor Eisenberg has promoted the view that punitive damages are both small and predictable. Not surprisingly, each of them is critical of my proposal, but as I will indicate below, neither provides any evidence that punitive damages play a constructive role in society. Without such a beneficial function, the costs of these awards cannot be justified.en_US
dc.format.extent1 document (17 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherThe Georgetown Law Journalen_US
dc.subject.lcshExemplary damages -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshEnvironmental law -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshProducts liability -- United Statesen_US
dc.titleWhy There is No Defense of Punitive Damagesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttp://ssrn.com/abstract=150534


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record