The Tribune’s March 3 editorial on the Rachel Barton verdict demonstrates a misunderstanding of the difference between punitive damages and compensatory damages. The Tribune says: “The jury could have given Barton and her lawyers the obscene figure of nearly $600 million they suggested would be fair compensation.” The Tribune later says that under the Tort Reform Act, which was unfairly steamrolled through the legislature without debate and later declared to be unconstitutional by our Supreme Court, Ms. Barton could have received even higher punitive damages than were assessed by the jury and that “would have amply compensated” her.
Punitive damages are not designed to compensate the injured person but are intended to punish the wrongdoer who caused the injury. Compensatory damages are the means by which an injured person is compensated for the pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, medical expenses and loss of earnings resulting from an injury caused by the misconduct of another.
