quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
When I see lawsuits and awards in cases like these, I wonder, should the dollar amount to damages awarded be considered independent of the defendant's financial status, or should juries factor in how deep the defendant's pockets are?

What if this spilt coffee accident happened at an independently owned coffee shop? Do you think the plaintiffs would seek $5 million - much less $50 million - knowing that $300K alone would shut down the coffee shop and bankrupt its owners? I know a lot of people will rationalize that for a multi-billion dollar company, the award should be large enough to send a message, otherwise they won't be motivated to fix a problem.

Say some guy sets your car on fire. It's fair market replacement value is $25K. The vandal has has a net worth of $100K. You sue the guy, and the jury awards $25K. If the vandal has a net worth of $1 billion, does the replacement value of your car suddenly become $10 million, b/c $25K is chump change to him?