We cannot judge from here in Tennessee which side is right in an asbestos-related lawsuit down in Mississippi. The plaintiff says that decades after mixing a particular type of mud used for drilling, he developed asbestosis. The defendants say the medical evidence shows otherwise, and that the man's current shortness of breath did not come from asbestos exposure.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the plaintiff did in fact develop asbestosis as a result of exposure to the drilling mud. Would that justify the $322 million jury verdict he was recently awarded?
Let's think about it. The jury awarded the man $22 million in actual damages. That has to do with his medical expenses, lost income and so forth. Certainly no one should object to his receiving full compensation for those costs and losses.
But the jury also awarded the plaintiff $300 million in punitive damages. That's more than 13 times his actual economic losses! The man's attorney says it's the biggest verdict ever awarded in an asbestos suit filed by a single individual.
But such a verdict is not real justice; it's "jackpot justice."
Punitive damages can be appropriate if an individual or a company is shown to have irresponsibly harmed someone. But punitive damages should be in reasonable proportion to the actual monetary losses that the plaintiff suffers - perhaps an amount equal to or double the actual economic losses.
It is easy for sympathetic jurors to hand out massive damages. But unreasonable awards do not serve the cause of justice.
Tennessee lawmakers are considering limits on non-economic damages. Such caps are appropriate.