Melissa's tugboat accidentally collides with Tyler's yacht, and Tyler sues Melissa for negligence. A federal jury finds Melissa liable and awards Tyler $5,000 in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. Melissa appeals to the United States Supreme Court challenging the punitive damage award. If the court heard the case, it would likely .

overturn the punitive damage award as grossly excessive.

Explanation:

If the court heard the case, it would likely overturn the punitive damage award as grossly excessive.

This is because, since or if it has been established to be an accident and not intentional, and Mellisa has being fined of $5000 for damages, the $50miliom is unreasonable or too much to pay as the punitive damages. Hence, it will be assumed that the previous jury or verdict violates a sense of justice.

Overturn the punitive damage awarded as grossly excessive.

Explanation: If the punitive damage award is challenged in a Supreme Court, The punitive damage award will most likely be overturned as it seems too excessive.

To start with,A defendant is required to pay a fee in punitive damage if the defendant is guilty of an offense perpetrated delibrately, intentionally or with utter negligence. This is to serve as warning signal to others to desist from such acts. The punitive damage fee is usually paid aside from the Compensatory damage fee and could be seen as a way to buttress the amount paid to the plaintiff.

However, with a Compensatory damage fee of $5000 and a punitive damage fee of $50million for an accidental and unintentional incident seems overly excessive. Even though there is no maximum amount for punitive damage in the constitution. punitive damages are usually meant to warn against intentional and negligent acts. Therefore, a punitive damage fee of $50million for an accidental act will most likely be overturned by the Supreme Court.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.

b because thats the naswer i got