n recent years, juries have awarded increasingly large punitive damages, often dwarfing actual damages. Recently, the United States Supreme Court decided that the punitive damages awarded in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case were excessive, setting a much-needed benchmark for future awards.

Punitive damages are meant to further economically punish a defendant on top of already awarded repayments of monetary damages to the plaintiff. However, when there is no limit on the amount of punitive damages, many juries do little more than pull a number out of thin air. There are no ground rules in place to guide juries in determining a just and reasonable figure to award a plaintiff. Emotional testimony often overshadows facts and logic, resulting in eye-popping verdicts.

What jurors, and the general public, fail to take into account is that ultimately these millions – and in some cases billions – of dollars have to be recuperated, usually in the form of higher costs for goods and services, thus impacting every consumer at every level.

While plaintiffs’ attorneys will argue that these figures achieve the purpose of thoroughly punishing defendants for their acts, it’s hard to take them seriously when the same lawyers are pocketing a quarter, a third or even half of these awards. One outrageous punitive damage award can make one personal injury lawyer an instant multi-millionaire. And while these lawyers claim they to be acting in the name of justice, they also complain that putting a cap on such damages will discourage them from taking cases—clear admission that these lawyers are motivated by greed, not justice. If helping the “little guy” for whom this group of lawyers is supposedly a “champion” doesn’t come with an opportunity for riches, the plaintiff’s bar is not interested. Some champion.

Reformers in California have tried multiple times to limit the amount of punitive awards. Just this past year, a bill that would have capped punitive damages at three times actual damages was shot down in the legislature. Once again, a common sense reform was stifled by our legislature, with whom the personal injury bar’s considerable campaign contributions give unjustifiable influence.

The goal of a civil lawsuit should be to make an injured or aggrieved person whole—that’s justice served. Simply seeking the highest monetary award possible to ensure a big paycheck for personal injury lawyers is justice abused.

Like the Supreme Court, our legislators should demand that justice, not greed, rule in our courts.

Diann Rogers is the president of Central California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. CCCALA is a nonprofit, grassroots public education organization dedicated to serving as a watchdog over the legal system and those who would seek to abuse it for undeserved gain. Central California CALA currently has over 4,000 supporters throughout the Sacramento region and Central Valley. For more information, visit www.StopBadLawsuits.com