Gray, Anthony (2018) Punitive damages: time for re-examination. Tort Law Review, 26 (1). pp. 18-37. ISSN 1039-3285
Abstract
This paper questions the utility of courts continuing to award punitive damages. It argues that the practice unacceptably mixes what seems to be a criminal remedy into the civil realm, where it does not belong. There is merit in retaining the distinction between the criminal law and the civil law. They serve different functions. Punitive damages cannot meet the objectives that they are said to serve, including punishment and deterrence, given the likely availability of insurance. Punitive damages are even less justifiable when imposed in the context of vicarious liability.
|
Statistics for this ePrint Item |
| Item Type: | Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C) |
|---|---|
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Item Status: | Live Archive |
| Additional Information: | Permanent restricted access to Published version due to publisher copyright policy. |
| Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: | Current - Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts - School of Law and Justice (1 Jul 2013 -) |
| Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: | Current - Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts - School of Law and Justice (1 Jul 2013 -) |
| Date Deposited: | 21 Sep 2018 01:24 |
| Last Modified: | 02 Oct 2018 03:20 |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | punitive damages, tort, civil law, criminal law, deterrence, punishment, vicarious liability |
| Fields of Research (2008): | 18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180126 Tort Law |
| Socio-Economic Objectives (2008): | C Society > 94 Law, Politics and Community Services > 9404 Justice and the Law > 940401 Civil Justice |
| URI: | http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/34787 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Archive Repository Staff Only |