Law Commons^™

Judge-Jury Difference In Punitive Damages Awards: Who Listens To The Supreme Court?, Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise

Michael Heise

We analyze thousands of trials from a substantial fraction of the nation’s most populous counties as well as a smaller sample of less populous counties. Evidence from four major Civil Justice Survey data sets spanning more than a decade establishes that: (1) compensatory awards are strongly associated with punitive awards and (2) the punitive-compensatory relation has not materially changed over time. But (3) 2005 data suggest, for the first time, systematic differences between judges and juries in the punitive-compensatory relation. Despite claims that the Supreme Court’s State Farm decision changed the punitivecompensatory relation, we present evidence that the 2005 shift …

Breathe Deeply: The Tort Of Smokers' Battery, Irene Scharf

Irene Scharf

This Article explores the long and faltering history of attempts to impose liability on tobacco product manufactures. Part II traces the manufacturers' historical and current actions of targeting youth through both promotions and deceptive advertising. Part III argues in favor of an expanded cause of action against the manufacturers for the intentional tort of battery. Part IV discusses the prospect of awards of punitive damages in these cases, and the Epilogue summarizes other advantages of the battery cause of action.

Peace: A Public Purpose For Punitive Damages?, Symposium: Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Deterrence: The Debate After Philip Morris V. Williams, Christopher J. Robinette

Christopher J Robinette

Punitive Damages And The Consumerization Of Arbitration, Thomas J. Stipanowich

Thomas J. Stipanowich

In this sequel to his 1986 article on punitive damages in arbitration, Professor Stipanowich explores the issues at the heart of the debate over whether punitive or exemplary damages should be available in arbitration between investors and securities brokers and firms. He critiques relevant proposals by the NASD’s Ruder Commission and examines mechanisms for more effectively addressing the punitive damages issue. This article predates and foreshadows the eventual recognition of the authority of securities arbitrators to award punitive damages.

Punitive Damages In Arbitration: Garrity V. Lyle Stuart, Inc. Reconsidered, Thomas J. Stipanowich

Thomas J. Stipanowich

In this article, Professor Stipanowich discusses the evolution of arbitration as a wide-ranging “surrogate” for civil trial and the debate over arbitrators’ power to levy awards of punitive or exemplary damages. He exhaustively summarizes and analyzes relevant court decisions, policy and practical concerns.

Imposing Punitive Damage Liability On The Intoxicated Driver, Martin Kotler

Martin A. Kotler

This Article explores the traditional justification for the imposition of punitive damage liability in the context of drunk driving. Though courts have increasingly found such damages to be available in the appropriate case, neither the deterrence nor punishment rationales can be justified in the absence of widespread public awareness that specific conduct has the potential to result in liability. Criminal sanction, therefore, better serves to accomplish the intended purposes.