Punitive damages should be related to compensatory damages, but higher if the injurer has been or is more likely to be unpunished
The entire case is as attached. this order is only for question 3 and 4 as below 3. Punitive damages should be related to compensatory damages, but higher if the injurer has been or is more likely to be unpunished (or under-punished) for negligent behavior. What evidence exists that McDonald’s has not internalized the full cost of harm in the past (prior victims not or undercompensated), and thus deserving of punitive damages on economic efficiency grounds? 4. Costly litigation deters victims coming forward–which would decrease injurer’s precaution–but also incentivizes victims to take precaution to avoid litigation. What evidence suggests punitive damages are needed because the marginal legal cost to the injurer is relatively lower than the marginal legal cost to the victim, and thus disincentivized victims from coming forward? I will provide pointers as to give more detail as we go along. This will depend on what the prof tells me along the way The Hager and Miltenberg paper discusses more on the economic theory of punitive damages, to an extent not quite covered in the Cooter and Ulen text. Apologies for the formatting of the Hager and Miltenberg paper. It’s available through the BU Library in a slightly more readable format. Coffee.pdf is not required but does provide more details on the case.