Haimes vs Temple University & Vandevender vs Sheetz Inc.
Introduction
Have you ever followed a court case and been astonished at the outcome and the damages awarded in the case? I believe we have all heard about cases where the plaintiff is awarded a very large sum of money for a case that appears not to warrant the award. Most of these scenarios take place in cases where the tort law applies. According to authors Kubasek, Brennan and Browne (2009), tort law is defined as injury that to a person or their property. Tort law is primarily a state law and stipulations can vary. Tort law was put in place to encourage civility, discourage people and companies from private retaliation and to compensate innocent people who are injured due to the wrongful act of a person or company. According to The Legal Environment of Business A Critical Thinking Approach, there are different types of damages awarded in relation to tort cases. These damages are nominal, which is usually awarded when the plaintiff has not suffered serious damage, compensatory, which include general and special damages, and punitive damages. Punitive damages are usually intended to punish defendants and often go beyond simply compensating the plaintiff. (Kubasek et al.,2009)
The problem with punitive damages is that there is little to no consistency in the application or review and very often these are awards are reduced once they reach the appellant level. (Kubasek et al.,2009) The Legal Environment of Business A Critical Thinking Approach, also references how the public perceives punitive damages. Due to the way in which the media covers these types of cases, the public is left with the thought that the court system is essentially throwing away money by awarding excessive amounts to plaintiffs that may not necessarily deserve it, based on the facts of their case. This perception has been used as the basis for proposing tort reform among many politicians. (Kubasek et al.,2009)
This paper will focus on two court cases, Vandevender vs. Sheetz, Inc. and
Have you ever followed a court case and been astonished at the outcome and the damages awarded in the case? I believe we have all heard about cases where the plaintiff is awarded a very large sum of money for a case that appears not to warrant the award. Most of these scenarios take place in cases where the tort law applies. According to authors Kubasek, Brennan and Browne (2009), tort law is defined as injury that to a person or their property. Tort law is primarily a state law and stipulations can vary. Tort law was put in place to encourage civility, discourage people and companies from private retaliation and to compensate innocent people who are injured due to the wrongful act of a person or company. According to The Legal Environment of Business A Critical Thinking Approach, there are different types of damages awarded in relation to tort cases. These damages are nominal, which is usually awarded when the plaintiff has not suffered serious damage, compensatory, which include general and special damages, and punitive damages. Punitive damages are usually intended to punish defendants and often go beyond simply compensating the plaintiff. (Kubasek et al.,2009)
The problem with punitive damages is that there is little to no consistency in the application or review and very often these are awards are reduced once they reach the appellant level. (Kubasek et al.,2009) The Legal Environment of Business A Critical Thinking Approach, also references how the public perceives punitive damages. Due to the way in which the media covers these types of cases, the public is left with the thought that the court system is essentially throwing away money by awarding excessive amounts to plaintiffs that may not necessarily deserve it, based on the facts of their case. This perception has been used as the basis for proposing tort reform among many politicians. (Kubasek et al.,2009)
This paper will focus on two court cases, Vandevender vs. Sheetz, Inc. and