Buffalo Creek and the issue of punitive damages vs. compensatory damages is a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked debate on the issue, the most famous of which is the “hot coffee case”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald's restaurant, spilled it, and was severely burned. He sued the McDonald's corporation, received $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was approximately $500,000. To many, this case is frivolous (in the sense that the plaintiff's prospects for success were low or non-existent), but it actually highlights the issue of punitive damages that were excessive in relation to the harm suffered and its causes. Damages in the United States include two categories. Compensation for damages is intended to compensate for the harm suffered by the claimant. Punitive damages, in contrast, are intended to punish the defendant. Punitive damages exceed the plaintiff's loss, to deter the defendant from further wrongdoing. For example, the fact that a company pays large punitive damages may encourage it to be more cautious. Another difference between the two categories is the money involved. If the damages are compensatory, the money usually goes entirely to the plaintiff, but if they are punitive, some of the money goes to the law firm and some to the plaintiff. However, we can ask ourselves the following questions. How are punitive damages actually awarded? And what is the current trend in the United States and France in this area? To answer these questions, we will first see how the American lawyer Gerald M. Stern man...... middle of paper ..... .age was excessive compared to the damage suffered by the plaintiffs and the "breaches of contract" of the defendant15 . This decision could constitute the beginning of the introduction of punitive damages in France, although for its award two conditions should be met: proportionality both to the damage suffered and to the "breaches of contract" of the defendant. It's not a problem at the moment. However, the main problem with punitive damages in the United States is their amount, which is often considered excessive. The question is therefore that of limiting the amount or restricting its allocation. In France, on the contrary, the question is whether they should be introduced and under what conditions. French judges appear willing to introduce such damages and, if so, France would be the first country in Europe to do so.