Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Adding Insult To Death: Why Punitive Damages Should Not Be Imposed Against A Deceased Tortfeasor's Estate In Ohio, Alec A. Beech
Adding Insult To Death: Why Punitive Damages Should Not Be Imposed Against A Deceased Tortfeasor's Estate In Ohio, Alec A. Beech
Akron Law Review
A majority of jurisdictions in the United States have determined, either statutorily or judicially, that punitive damages cannot be imposed against deceased tortfeasors. However, a recent Ohio appellate court held to the contrary. In Whetstone v. Binner, the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals adopted the minority view when it held that punitive damages could be imposed against a decedent’s estate. This Comment takes the position that Whetstone was incorrectly decided. Specifically, this Comment argues that the longstanding purposes of punitive damages are not furthered when such damages are imposed against estates and that Ohio law supports this conclusion.
Tortious Liability For Bad Faith Refusal To Pay, Jeffrey Schobert
Tortious Liability For Bad Faith Refusal To Pay, Jeffrey Schobert
Akron Law Review
In Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., the Ohio Supreme Court imposed on insurers a good faith duty in any refusal to pay claims made by their insured. Its decision placed Ohio among a growing number of jurisdictions that have recognized this good faith duty. The court adopted its rationale by relying heavily on existing insurance case law in the refusal-to-settle third-party claims type actions. The court defined the standard of good faith in terms of a reasonable justification by the insurer in refusing to pay a claim "because it believed there was no coverage of the claim." The …
Uninsured Motorist Insurance Now Covers Punitive Award - Hutchinson V. J.C. Penny Casualty Insurance Company, Dale Katzenmeyer
Uninsured Motorist Insurance Now Covers Punitive Award - Hutchinson V. J.C. Penny Casualty Insurance Company, Dale Katzenmeyer
Akron Law Review
A split of authority exists among the few states which have decided the issue In jurisdictions permitting recovery of punitive damages, uninsured motorist coverage is intended to place the insurer in the shoes of the uninsured tortfeasor. Since the insurer stands in the shoes of the tortfeasor, and since punitive damages could be covered if the tortfeasor had his own insurance, it is illogical to deny the victim punitive damages simply because the tortfeasor is uninsured. Other jurisdictions believe that punitive damages should not be awarded since that award would not operate to punish the tortfeasor and would therefore violate …
The Constutionality Of Punitive Damages: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company V. Cleopatra Haslip, Thomas P. Mannion
The Constutionality Of Punitive Damages: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company V. Cleopatra Haslip, Thomas P. Mannion
Akron Law Review
This Note examines the history of the constitutional challenges to the doctrine of punitive damages. Next, this Note explores the Supreme Court's decision in Haslip. Finally, this Note examines the ramifications of the Haslip decision.
Will Employment Discrimination Class Actions Survive?, Melissa Hart
Will Employment Discrimination Class Actions Survive?, Melissa Hart
Akron Law Review
This paper will argue that the changes wrought by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 do not in fact pose a barrier to resolution of employment discrimination claims through class litigation. The addition of compensatory and punitive damages and a jury-trial right in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 may increase the level of scrutiny and perhaps the level of judicial involvement necessary in an employment discrimination class action. But they do not render such a class action either impermissible under Rule 23 or violative of due process or Seventh Amendment jury trial rights. Courts and commentators who insist that …
Due Process Limitations On Punitive Damages: Why State Farm Won't Be The Last Word, Laura J. Hines
Due Process Limitations On Punitive Damages: Why State Farm Won't Be The Last Word, Laura J. Hines
Akron Law Review
Part I of this article will trace the development of the evolving principles and requirements the Court is imposing on state awards of punitive damages, identifying notable undercurrents within the Court regarding this new and expanding application of the Due Process Clause. Part II will present a detailed analysis of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, which represents the Court’s most ambitious attempt yet to provide guidance to states on how to approach the imposition of punitive damages and how to assess the appropriate size thereof. Finally, Part III of this article will examine recent lower court cases …
What Makes The Collateral Source Rule Different?, Michael B. Kelly
What Makes The Collateral Source Rule Different?, Michael B. Kelly
Akron Law Review
Tort liability forces parties engaged in risk-producing activities to internalize the costs that the activities impose on those adversely affected by the risks they create. Rational parties should take precautions to reduce those risks rather than pay the costs the risks cause – at least up to the point that further reductions would cost more than the harms they would prevent. How could reforms that reduce liability, and thus force parties to internalize a lower portion of the costs suffered as a result of the risks they create, produce a decrease in fatal accidents? Part I below briefly considers this …
A Cap On The Defendant's Appeal Bond?: Punitive Damages Tort Reform, Doug Rendleman
A Cap On The Defendant's Appeal Bond?: Punitive Damages Tort Reform, Doug Rendleman
Akron Law Review
This article begins in Part II with background about appeal bonds and the way their amounts were set before tort reform. Since the defendant’s cost of an appeal bond is an expense and, perhaps, an impediment to its appeal, the defendant will seek ways to surmount, reduce, or avoid the impediment. Part II then uses Pennzoil v. Texaco to illustrate two of defendants’ strategies for staying collection on a judgment pending review in lieu of posting a huge appeal bond—obtain a federal injunction and file for bankruptcy. This article shows why neither strategy is sufficient: the federal court’s abstention doctrines …
Statutory Caps And Judicial Review Of Damages, Colleen P. Murphy
Statutory Caps And Judicial Review Of Damages, Colleen P. Murphy
Akron Law Review
In this article, I examine two procedural questions arising from the use of statutory caps. First, how should a statutory cap affect judicial review of awards for possible excessiveness? Second, when a legislature has imposed a total cap on a combination of different types of damages (such as on the total of punitive and compensatory damages or on the total of economic and noneconomic damages), how should courts allocate multiple awards to conform to the cap?...With respect to multiple awards that exceed a total cap on different types of damages, I suggest that the appropriate way to conform multiple awards …
The Struggle Over Tort Reform And The Overlooked Legacy Of The Progressives, Rachel M. Janutis
The Struggle Over Tort Reform And The Overlooked Legacy Of The Progressives, Rachel M. Janutis
Akron Law Review
In attempting to distinguish the 1950s and 1960s tort expansion from the current tort retraction, the scholarly account depicts the tort expansion as primarily a judicial movement led by legal academics devoid of any self-interest. In contrast, this account holds out the current tort retraction as a mainly political movement driven by the economic self-interest of its proponents...First, contemporary tort reform, rather than solely being a reaction to tort expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, is part of a continuing debate between corporate, professional and insurance interests on one side and consumer interests and the trial bar on the other …
Exxon Shipping Co. V. Baker: Why The Supreme Court Missed The Boat On Punitive Damages, Maria C. Klutinoty
Exxon Shipping Co. V. Baker: Why The Supreme Court Missed The Boat On Punitive Damages, Maria C. Klutinoty
Akron Law Review
This Note will touch upon the numerous constitutional challenges the doctrine of punitive damages has faced, and will discuss noteworthy Supreme Court cases preceding Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker at length, including BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 5 as well as State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. 6 This Note argues against the imposition of a strict one-to-one maximum ratio of punitiveto-compensatory damages. In light of the varying application of Exxon outside of the maritime context, such an imposition defeats the purpose of punitive damages by diluting their potential for deterrence, and it needlessly complicates the …