Damages

Interesting NY Times article on the American use of punitive damages. Also ties in nicely to my current Conflict of Laws class. The article begins by mentioning the refusal of an Italian court to recognize a US judgment for punitive damages. I found that pretty surprising in light of how Canada generally applies the international principle of comity (respect of foreign legal jurisdictions). BC has become one of the most generous forums in the world in recognizing foreign judgments under the common law established in Morguard Investments v. DeSavoye and it's codification in the Court Order Enforcement Act. A BC court can refuse to enforce a foreign judgment if it would be contrary to public policy to do so - but this is a high burden. The judgment must be in opposition to fundamental principles of our legal system. I don't know anything about Italian conflict of laws rules, but I imagine that the decision indicates an Italian view that punitive damages are fundamentally contrary to their legal system.

The Supreme Court of Canada's view of punitive damages is articulated in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. Punitive damages are only awarded in exceptional circumstances and their value is restricted. I tend to agree with the Canadian (and rest of the world's) view. I think the American court's use of punitive damages is the most important factor in explaining the litigious nature of American society. Any thoughts?