Abstract
Punitive damages are a powerful means of controlling antisocial conduct. In both historic and present context, however, courts and commentators have expressed serious concern over the role of punitive damages awards in the civil justice system.' In a recent case before the United States Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor stated that "[p]unitive damages are a powerful weapon. Imposed wisely and with restraint, they have the potential to advance legitimate state interests. Imposed indiscriminately, however, they have a devastating potential for harm." Much of the controversy over punitive damages arises because courts continue to use archaic rules to govern awards of punitive damages without considering the substance of those rules.' Although the doctrine of punitive damages has long been a part of the common law, "[t]he rules of stare decisis should never be a commitment to intellectual stagnation." Therefore, it may be time for a thorough reexamination of the rules and procedures applicable to punitive damages.
Recommended Citation
Johnson, Alison D.
(1993)
"Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange
and the Utah Punitive Damage Act:
Toward a Sounder Law of Punitive
Damages?,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1993:
No.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1993/iss2/5