about something wild, there is a fact or something missing from the explanation that explains the whole thing.

It's like the famous Mcdonald's coffee case. You hear about it and think that it is nuts, but then you hear the entire case and it makes since. You hear that the woman in question almost died in the hospital and that it was discovered that McDonalds had seriously injured more than 900 people over the previous years. That they were purposefully serving their coffee hotter than is standard because if they served it hotter, it stayed hotter longer, and people bought more. They were literally deciding to hurt people because as long as they could settle the cases cheaply, they made more money serving the coffee too hot. The jury awarded punitive damages to adjust the equation for McDonalds which is exactly what punitive damages are supposed to do.

So unless you actually know the details of the case, its hard to say if it is a reasonable verdict or not.