PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 347.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 14, 1996
Authorizes punitive damages to be awarded against a defendant, to the extent permitted by applicable State law, if the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that conduct carried out by the defendant with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others was the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject of the civil action where the claim relates to: (1) volunteer services performed by the defendant for a government entity or a not-for-profit organization organized and conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes; or (2) activities or services performed by such a not-for-profit organization, excluding health care providers. Limits the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded in such an action to: (1) the greater of twice the sum of the amount awarded to the claimant for economic loss and non-economic loss or $250,000, in general; and (2) the lesser of twice that sum or $250,000 in any such action against an individual whose net worth does not exceed $500,000 or against an owner of an unincorporated business or any partnership, corporation, association, congregation, unit of local government, or organization which has fewer than 25 full-time employees. Makes exceptions to such limits on punitive damages: (1) for particular categories of misconduct, such as where that misconduct constitutes a hate crime or a crime of violence or act of international terrorism for which the defendant has been convicted; and (2) where such limits would result in an award that is insufficient to punish the egregious conduct of the defendant or to deter such conduct in the future. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) consideration of punitive damages in a separate proceeding at the request of any party; and (2) inadmissibility of evidence relative only to a claim of punitive damages in a proceeding concerning compensatory damages.
People & committees
Sen. Dole, Robert J. [R-KS] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 347.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 18, 2023. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1618 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1618 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1618 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1618 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.