On The Punitive Damages

Punishment and deterrence of wrongdoers is widely accepted as a legitimate function of the criminal law,but the "conventional wisdom" is that punishing tortfeasors is not the reason why they are obliged to pay damages for injury and damage inflicted by their torts.The theory that civil remedy serves compensatory function rather than punishment and deterrence to wrongdoers was also widely adopted in both common law system and civil law system to explain the distinction between criminal penalty and civil liability.Although the law of tort is concerned with the allocation of responsibility for loss,the function of punishment and deterrence in private remedy should not be ignored considering massive civil conflict based on obvious culpability for which the compensatory damages is not enough to redress.Therefore,it is necessary to pay attention to the excessively reprehensive tort distinguished with normal one.Punitive damages as one form of damages which are fundamental to civil remedy,also called exemplary damages or vindictive damages,is wholly anomalous in terms of the normal principles of damages in tort and contract.In essence,due to the illogical and subjective character of punitive damages,it is possible to award it in tort in restricted circumstances;and they normally are not available in contractual remedy and other forms of civil remedy.The concept of punitive remedy in private law could be traced back to the multiple damages which has been in existence since the Code of Hammurabi in 2000 B.C..The doctrine evolved from two different legal system:The Roman law had evidenced multiple damages in civil law system.During Justinian' s reign,the idea of quasi ex delicto was established in his last category of obligations.An example of this category arose where damage was caused to any property or person by reason of an occupier of a building throwing or pouring anything out of the building.The injured person could obtain double recovery. However,initially the penalty was paid in kind,as the law developed,the penalty was paid in the form of monetary payment.The inchoate common law system adopted the punitive remedy to meet certain societal needs such as compensation for mental anguish or other intangible harms,punishment and deterrence of wrongdoers,and as a substitute for revenge.The courts used language that was often imprecise,and therefore,there arose confusion as to the exact nature of punitive damages.The decision often reflected both compensatory and punitive function.It was not until 1964 clear guidelines were established in England,but it has been settled in America for over a century that punitive damages are noncompensatory in character.In addition to the function which the punitive damages serves,including punishment,deterrence,and sometimes compensation,economical incentive makes punitive damages encourage private entity to enforce law and recover damage they inflicted by means of monetary payment exceeding the amount of compensatory damages.It is no doubt that the function of private enforcement in punitive damages will exert great influence on our civil remedial system characterized by public law enforcement and compensatory function based on actual loss.