For the common law, the Court said, the jury's right to determine damages is absolute. Other rights under law, such as wrongful death, worker's comp, and tenant rights, have been created by the legislature and can therefore be modified by it. Even after eight centuries or so, the jury system is not perfect and juries sometimes award damages that appear to many to be unreasonable. Medical malpractice suits are often mentioned, although studies of the effect of malpractice settlements and awards on the overall cost of medicine are inconclusive. Other states have taken various approaches to reviewing jury damage awards.
Most states allow judicial review.
That means an appellate court can review each specific case, weighing the merits of how the jury reacted to specific facts. So in Oregon at least punitive damages can be second-guessed by an appeals court. But approaches other than judicial review are possible. For instance, Indiana, the first state to adopt malpractice reform, uses caps but combines them with a patient compensation fund funded by a surcharge on doctors, mandated medical review before any trial, a reporting mechanism for settled claims, and other tools. It's complex, but results so far seem to benefit both practitioners and patients.