失控的陪审团里的损害和损害赔偿——about damages
控告枪支生产商的案件，陪审团裁决，被告赔偿原告：
1.Sepcial Damages 1million
2.General Damages 110 million
问题：
1.什么是Special Damages？
2.什么是General Damages？
3.和Punitive/Exemplary Damages有何区别？
1. Special Damages
Pecuniary compensation for injuries that follow the initial injury for which compensation is sought.
The terminology and classification of types of damages is varied, at times contradictory, and often confusing. The term "special damages" is one such term that can produce uncertainty, depending on the jurisdiction and context in which it is invoked.
Special damages are sought in lawsuits based on contract and tort. They are asked for in addition to "general damages." These two types are classified as Compensatory Damages and are both designed to return persons to the position they were in prior to the alleged injury.
For example,
if a person was injured in an automobile accident, the victim could seek damages that would cover medical expenses, damage to the motor vehicle, and the loss of earnings now and in the future. Each of these would be classified as special damages.
If the victim sought a money award for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of consortium, these would be classified as general damages.
Thus, special damages are based on measurable dollar amounts of actual loss, while general damages are for intangible losses that can be inferred from special damages as well as other facts surrounding the case. In this description special damages are damages that are reduced to a "sum certain" before trial. This description is typically used in tort actions.
However, the definitions of special and general damages are reversed in contractual disputes. Thus, general damages in contract would include the difference between contract and market prices, the difference between the value of the goods as delivered and as warranted, and interest on money that has been wrongfully withheld. In contrast, special damages would include all other damages. In contract special damages and "consequential" damages are virtually interchangeable. In this context the losses flowing out of the breached contract could be compensated for as special damages.
For example, the lost profits that resulted from the failure of the seller to deliver the goods could be claimed as special damages. However, it is commonplace for sellers to require buyers to sign a contract excluding the recovery of special or consequential damages.
In addition, special damages are sometimes described in statutes when the legislature seeks to identify specific types of awards that are available when the state or a private person violates a person's rights. For example, a statute may list the special damages plaintiffs are entitled to if their real property is improperly taken through Eminent Domain.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Special+damages
2.General Damages: n. monetary recovery (money won) in a lawsuit for injuries suffered (such as pain, suffering, inability to perform certain functions) or breach of contract for which there is no exact dollar value which can be calculated.
They are distinguished from special damages, which are for specific costs, and from punitive (exemplary) damages for punishment and to set an example when malice, intent, or gross negligence was a factor. (See: damages)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/general+damages
3. Punitive Damages
Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.
Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, may be awarded by the trier of fact (a jury or a judge, if a jury trial was waived) in addition to actual damages, which compensate a plaintiff for the losses suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. Punitive damages are a way of punishing the defendant in a civil lawsuit and are based on the theory that the interests of society and the individual harmed can be met by imposing additional damages on the defendant. Since the 1970s, punitive damages have been criticized by U.S. business and insurance groups, which allege that exorbitant punitive damage awards have driven up the cost of doing business.
Punitive damages have been characterized as "quasi-criminal" because they stand halfway between the criminal and Civil Law. Though they are awarded to a plaintiff in a private civil lawsuit, they are noncompensatory and in the nature of a criminal fine.
Punitive damages were first recognized in England in 1763 and were recognized by the American colonies almost immediately. By 1850, punitive damages had become a well-established part of civil law.
The purposes of punitive damages are to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the defendant and others from similar misbehavior in the future. The nature of the wrongdoing that justifies punitive damages is variable and imprecise. The usual terms that characterize conduct justifying these damages include bad faith, fraud, malice, oppression, outrageous, violent, wanton, wicked, and reckless. These aggravating circumstances typically refer to situations in which the defendant acted intentionally, maliciously, or with utter disregard for the rights and interests of the plaintiff.
Unless otherwise required by statute, the award of punitive damages is left to the discretion of the trier of fact. A small number of states refuse to award punitive damages in any action, and the remaining states have instituted various ways of determining when and how they are to be awarded. In some states, an award of nominal damages, which acknowledges that a legal right has been violated but little harm has been done, is an adequate foundation for the recovery of punitive damages. In other states, the plaintiff must be awarded Compensatory Damages before punitive damages are allowed.
Punitive damages are a controversial issue in tort and product liability law. Injured plaintiffs and their attorneys often seek punitive damages from companies that have made allegedly defective or unsafe products and have known about the defects or safety problems. Plaintiffs view punitive damages as a way of sending a message to the manufacturer and to business, in general, that it is financially unwise to cut corners or ignore safety concerns. On the other hand, defendants in these actions contend that punitive damages are unfair, unpredictable, and often excessive. In their view, the plaintiff receives a financial windfall unrelated to the actual damages in the lawsuit.
Proponents of punitive damages believe that this type of award serves a number of important societal functions, including retribution, deterrence, compensation, and law enforcement.
Supporters of punitive damages contend that one function for such an award is to provide retribution to the victim of the defendant's reckless or wanton conduct. When a person is injured by the wanton misconduct of another, the plaintiff has the right to express her outrage by extracting a judicial fine from the wrongdoer. Seeking retribution allows the plaintiff to punish an intentional lawbreaker in much the same way as the criminal justice system punishes him.
Proponents believe that the most important function that punitive damages serve is that of deterrence. As in Criminal Law, the predominant purpose of punitive damages is to prevent similar misconduct in the future. Because the law does not catch and punish all persons who wantonly violate the rights of others, supporters argue that punitive damages help deter misconduct by publicizing, and at times sensationalizing, the punishment of those persons found guilty of egregious misconduct. Punitive damages tell manufacturers and other businesses that financial penalties will follow if companies sell products known to be defective.
Advocates of punitive damage awards also contend that these awards serve a compensation function. Although a plaintiff may receive actual damages for the injuries suffered, many of the plaintiff's actual losses, including those involving intangible harm, are not compensable under the rules of compensatory damage liability. Punitive damages help the plaintiff to be made whole again.
Another function of punitive damages articulated by supporters is law enforcement. Without the prospect of a large punitive damage windfall, many persons would not be willing to make their claims. Punitive damages act as a law enforcement vehicle, energizing prospective plaintiffs and motivating them to enforce the rules of law and to promote the functions of retribution, deterrence, and compensation.
Critics of punitive damages believe that large monetary awards are unfair, unreasonable, and not productive for society. One of their central criticisms goes to the idea of punitive damages as "quasi-criminal" punishments. Noting that proponents talk of retribution and deterrence, these critics argue that it is unfair to impose these "criminal" fines on defendants who do not have the usual safeguards of Criminal Procedure. They note that a plaintiff should satisfy a higher Burden of Proof than a mere "preponderance of the evidence," the usual standard in a civil trial. Some states have agreed, mandating that "clear and convincing evidence," a higher burden of proof, be used by the jury in determining whether to award punitive damages.
Critics also charge that the vagueness of standards for determining the defendant's liability for punitive damages and for calculating the award itself causes juries to make decisions based on passion, bias, and prejudice rather than on the law. The vagueness in such terms as reckless, willful, or wanton leads critics to conclude that juries have no meaningful, objective way to make an informed decision. Many states have recognized this criticism and developed a variety of procedures to instruct the jury fully and precisely and to require the trial court to assess the sufficiency of the evidence before awarding punitive damages and to issue written reasons why the award was or was not deserved in light of the legal standards.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 519, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996), also developed guidelines for assessing punitive damages. The Court held that the "degree of reprehensibility of defendant's conduct" is the most important indication of reasonableness in measuring punitive damages. The Court also measured the possible excessiveness of a punitive damage award by applying a ratio between the plaintiff's Compensatory Damages and the amount of the punitive damages.
Critics also note that the deterrence rationale is undercut when defendants are insured against punitive damage awards. In addition, when a government employee is found liable for misconduct and punitive damages are awarded, the taxpayers must pay for the award. Taxpayers are innocent parties, making it unreasonable for them to bear the punishment for the actions of a government employee.
Critics argue that because punitive damages are noncompensatory, they provide the plaintiff with an undeserved financial windfall. The public gains no benefit when an individual receives a multimillion dollar punitive damage verdict. Some states have responded to this criticism by requiring that part of a punitive damage award be paid to the state for some type of public good.
Finally, in mass disaster cases, involving products like asbestos, a manufacturer may have to pay multiple punitive damage awards. Critics contend that allowing punitive damages to early plaintiffs may bankrupt defendants, thereby depriving later plaintiffs of compensatory damages.
For these and other reasons, the critics see punitive damages as counterproductive to the public good. Large awards result in increased costs of products and services and even discourage companies from producing products or providing services out of fear of litigation.
The controversy over punitive damages is likely to continue because it involves fundamental issues of justice, fairness, and the public good.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/punitive+damages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages
《元照英美法词典》general damages P597, punitive damages P1120, special damages P1275
