What is the impact of large non-pecuniary awards for damages in the United States?

The spectre of exorbitant awards for non-pecuniary losses in reference to the United States was raised again in Arnold v. Teno, supra, where Spence J., writing for the court on the point, held, at 638-39: ... There can be no doubt that awards for non-pecuniary damages in the immediate past have been increasing apace. In the case of many verdicts in the United States, it may well be said that they have been soaring. ... ... Under the present common law system of liability for fault, there can be no excuse for foisting on the public the burden of caring for the plaintiff or supplying her with the necessities of life. However, that accomplished, ... one may and should have regard for the social impact of very large and, as I have said, non-compensatory awards for non-pecuniary damages. The very real and serious social burden of these exorbitant awards has been illustrated graphically in the United States in cases concerning medical malpractice. We have a right to fear a situation where none but the very wealthy could own or drive automobiles because none but the very wealthy could afford to pay the enormous insurance premiums which would be required by insurers to meet such exorbitant awards.