This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
by Salih Okur (University of Augsburg) On 8 and 9 March, scholars from more than a dozen different jurisdictions followed the invitation of Tobias Lutzi to discuss recent trends in punitivedamages at the University of Augsburg, Germany. Rademacher then analysed whether punitive elements could be found in German tort law.
This incident could well prove a violation of a statute or regulation making the act “negligent per se.” They could also seek punitivedamages in such a case. Compensatory damages cover both economic and non-economic damages. This case would seem a compelling application of punitivedamages.
The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitivedamages. 47 U.S.C. §
The officers seek $75,000 in damages in their complaint but also ask for unspecified punitivedamages. The second “Count Five” is actually just a demand for punitivedamages, rather than an actual separate tort. COUNT FOUR (Violation of a Public Safety Statute: D.C.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content