Premium
Toxic Torts, Politics, and Environmental Justice: The Case for Crimtorts *
Author(s) -
KOENIG THOMAS H.,
RUSTAD MICHAEL L.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
law and policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.534
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1467-9930
pISSN - 0265-8240
DOI - 10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00009.x
Subject(s) - punitive damages , tort , punishment (psychology) , wrongdoing , damages , plaintiff , class action , law , injustice , political science , economic justice , politics , action (physics) , criminology , law and economics , sociology , state (computer science) , liability , psychology , social psychology , physics , algorithm , quantum mechanics , computer science
The borderline between criminal and tort law has been increasingly blurred over the past quarter century by the emergence of new “crimtort” remedies which have evolved to deter and punish corporate polluters. Punitive damages, multiple damages, and other “crimtort” remedies are under unrelenting assault by neo‐conservatives principally because, under this paradigm, the punishment for wrongdoing can be calibrated to the wealth of the polluter. If wealth‐based punishment is eliminated by the “tort reformers,” plaintiffs’ victories in crimtort actions such as those portrayed in the movies Silkwood, A Class Action, and Erin Brockovich will become an endangered species.