Thursday, April 12, 2007
That's the suggestion of Keith Hylton (BU) in this SSRN entry. The abstract:
This essay is a series of reflections on the implications of Philip Morris for the tort reform movement. I make an effort below to find a middle ground between the positions of the plaintiff and defendant in Philip Morris. That middle ground involves largely returning to the Supreme Court's pre-Gore treatment of punitive damages and introducing new procedural devices for defendants to challenge awards. I close with a few observations on the implications of this case law for pain and suffering awards.
Incidentally, I am traveling, yet again, for the rest of this week, so posting may be sporadic. Wish the WNEC team luck in the Rendigs Products Liability moot court competition.