Comments on: Roundup – June 4

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:44:22 +0000

For those who'd like to check out the defense side of the underage jockey story, the government of Dubai (one of the United Arab Emirates) has a website here.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:46:02 +0000

It does seem unfair that one individual gets to keep the punitives; it seems like something that should be turned over to a public fund. Although if that were true, then they would be open to accusations of conflict for litigating on behalf of the public.

It’s interesting that the pole wasn’t inspected in fifty years. I wonder how long they’re supposed to last? Here in the Washington DC area, it’s recently come to light that up to 25% of the city’s fire hydrants are not functional. I guess it’s easy for infrastructure to go unnoticed.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:11:14 +0000

WEW,

There’s nothing inherently wrong with money verdicts; in fact, somtimes, it’s really the RIGHT verdict.

What should be done, then, when they claim it’s “not about the money”?

Easy – set up a lottery fund (Amricans sure seem to lov lotteries). All money from such suits goes into such a fund, to be given away at random to a tax-paying citizen of the jurisdiction in which the case what decided.

So, a Texas verdict puts money in a Txan pocket… at random.

No more fake claims of “not about the money”. No (or at least extremely mild) perverse incintives. Win-win!

By: Walter E. Wallis

Walter E. Wallis — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:34:31 +0000

How about, as soon as someone says it isn’t about the money a stipulation be entered banning money verdicts.