http://theseattleaccidentattorney.com/forty-one-states-allow-punitive-damages-washington-does-not-l-seattle-accident-attorney/ Personal Injury Law Blog Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:30:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://theseattleaccidentattorney.com/forty-one-states-allow-punitive-damages-washington-does-not-l-seattle-accident-attorney/comment-page-1/#comment-1083 Don Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:25:04 +0000 http://theseattleaccidentattorney.com/?p=268#comment-1083 Incredible would not be the right word, here. Irresponsible would better fit. One would think that the courts, in not allowing the introduction of evidence that a driver was drunk, would have denied the plaintiff admission of important evidence that showed the defenedent's driving ability to have been impaired by at least 1000x fold at the time of the accident. Would not this be an important and undeniable factor that the jury should have in making a decision? If he Supreme Court has considered the case of punitive damages and determined that society's right to protection is not more important than the defendant's right toexclude evidence, has it considered the question of whether or not it is denying the plaintiff rights to due process, a Constitutional question. Incredible would not be the right word, here. Irresponsible would better fit. One would think that the courts, in not allowing the introduction of evidence that a driver was drunk, would have denied the plaintiff admission of important evidence that showed the defenedent’s driving ability to have been impaired by at least 1000x fold at the time of the accident. Would not this be an important and undeniable factor that the jury should have in making a decision? If he Supreme Court has considered the case of punitive damages and determined that society’s right to protection is not more important than the defendant’s right toexclude evidence, has it considered the question of whether or not it is denying the plaintiff rights to due process, a Constitutional question.

]]>