징벌적 손해배상에 관한 미국의 최근 동향

• 영문명: Punitive Damages in USA torts system
• 발행기관: 한국재산법학회
• 저자명: 윤용석(Yoon Yong-Seok)
• 간행물 정보: 『재산법연구』재산법연구 제23권 제1호, 247~276쪽, 전체 30쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2006.06.01

영문 초록

  Punitive damages, in USA torts system, are awarded only for very serious misconduct coupled with a bad state of mind involving malice or at least a reckless disregard for rights of others. The stated purposes of punitive damages almost always include (a) punishment or retribution and (b) deterrence. Sometimes the purpose encompasses (c) the desire to assist in financing useful litigation by providing a source from fees and costs can paid. The purposes are somewhat conflicting in that they do not necessarily call for the same amount of punitive damages.
  It is said in USA that punitive damages are a controversial aspect of tort litigation and have been the subject of numerous theoretical, empirical, and experimental studies. Critics in USA have argued that the uncertainty and unpredictability that punitive damages claims injects into a case may increase the rate and amount of settlements and carry systemic consequences for the general processing of tort claims. An important one of those studies is a theory that answer two questions: (1) What place, if any, do punitive damages have in the civil law of tort, given that they appear to involve an idea of criminal punishment? (2) Why are punitive damages subject to special constitutional scrutiny, as in the Supreme Court’s decision in BMW v. Gore, if they really are part of the civil law of tort?
  Generally they say that punitive damages are not per se unconstitutional under the double jeopardy, excessive fines, or due process provisions of United State Constitution. However, extreme awards, given without appropriate guidance to the jury and without adequate review by judges, may violate due process. the Supreme Court’s decision in BMW v. Gore gave us three guideposts to review excessive awards: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct (2) the ratio between the plaintiff ’s compensatory damage and the amount of the punitive damage (3) the difference between the punitive damage and the civil or criminal sanctions authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
  Many states in USA now also limit the recovery of the amount of punitive damages as part of efforts to stem civil litigiousness, reduce perceived damage award inequities, and halt escalating insurance costs. These measures usually take the form of restrictions on the types of cases in which punitive damages may be sought, limitations on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded, special procedural requirements that must be followed in cases in which punitive damages are sought, and mechanism for review of punitive damages awards.
  This paper presents the recent cases on punitive damages and state statutes authorizing or restricting the award of punitive damages in USA, as well as describes briefly statutes setting out requirements for seeking punitive damages in civil matters.

목차

Ⅰ. 서언
Ⅱ. 징벌적 손해배상의 법적 쟁점
Ⅲ. 징벌적 손해배상제도의 운용상의 문제점과 개혁조치
Ⅳ. 결언
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉

키워드

불법행위법 고의불법행위 민사책임 손해배상제도 전보적배상 징별적 손해배상 civil law of tort punitive damage malice limitations on the amount of punitive damages