Unhappy with the damages awarded in this case, Petitioners would have this Court break new ground to cabin noneconomic damages by taking two new, controversial, and ill-advised steps. First, Petitioners contend that this Court should declare that, in assessing noneconomic damage awards going forward, lower courts should compare the verdict in the instant case to awards in past “similar” cases (i.e., perform a comparative analysis). See Petitioners’ Br. at 25; id at 34 (faulting the appellate court for its failure to “compare[] any of the awards to awards sustained in other cases”). Second, Petitioners insist that, “[i]n many respects, noneconomic damages and punitive damages are similar in nature and present similar problems in review for excessiveness.” Given these purported similarities, Petitioners argue that this Court should borrow from the U.S. Supreme Court’s punitive damage jurisprudence to create permissible ratios between noneconomic and economic damages. Neither of Petitioners’ “fixes” withstands scrutiny.