CAS ATRA

Question 1

Purpose of punitive damages.

Answer 1

To PUNISH a defendant for intentional/malicious conduct and to DETER such future misconduct (not to compensate the victim).

Question 2

Issues that lead to ATRA initiatives regarding punitive damages. (2)

Answer 2

• difficulty in predicting whether punitive damages will be awarded
• trend to astronomical awards

Question 3

ATRA reforms regarding punitive damages. (3)

Answer 3

• establish liability TRIGGER based on malice
• require CCE (clear & convincing evidence)
• require proportionality in awards

Question 4

ATRA’s tort reform initiatives. [CRAP] (4)

Answer 4

• Collateral source rule (eliminate) -> this rule says evidence of other compensation CANNOT be admitted at trial
• Rule of joint & several liability ->replace them with system of proportional liability
• Attorney retention sunshine -> require legislative approval of large contingent fee contracts
• Punitive damages (require 3 conditions before punitive damages can be paid) -> establish TRIGGER, require CLEAR evidence, require PROPORTIONALITY in awards

Question 5

ATRA’s tort reform initiatives. [CAN] (3)

Answer 5

• Class action reform (too much of award goes to lawyers)
• Appeal bond reform (limit size of appeal bond)
• Non-economic damages (pain & suffering) -> no clear guidance on determining amount of damages

Question 6

ATRA’s tort reform initiatives. [PPJ] (3)

Answer 6

• Pre-judgement interest -> currently available but system needs to be modified
• Product Liability -> laws needs to be made more clear & fair
• Jury service reform (because people try to get out of serving!)
  
  • > eliminate occupational exemptions
  • > reform rules for hardship exemptions
  • > give jurors scheduling flexibility
  • > better compensation for lengthy trials