Law Commons^™

Punitive Damages After Campbell: The Role Of Out-Of-State Conduct, Steven R. Hamlin

Campbell Law Review

This article examines the scope of out-of-state conduct that may be used after Campbell.

U.S. Supreme Court Tort Reform: Limiting State Power To Articulate And Develop Its Own Tort Law–Defamation, Preemption, And Punitive Damages, Thomas C. Galligan

ExpressO

U.S. Supreme Court Tort Reform: Limiting State Power to Articulate and Develop Its Own Tort Law–Defamation, Preemption, and Punitive Damages analyzes and critiques the three primary areas in which the U.S. Supreme Court has found federal constitutional limits on a state’s power to articulate, develop, and apply its common law of torts. It is the first piece to consider all three areas together as an emerging body of jurisprudence which Professor Galligan calls U.S. Supreme Court tort reform. After setting forth a modest model of adjudication, the article applies that model to each of the three areas: defamation and related …

Civil And Criminal Recidivists: Extraterritoriality In Tort And Crime, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Historically, punitive damage awards and criminal sentences have shared the common justifications of punishment and deterrence, with the culpability of tortfeasors and criminals alike being enhanced as a result of repeat misconduct. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in State Farm v. Campbell suggests, however, that the parallels now in effect stop at the state line. The extraterritorial misconduct of tortfeasors is permitted to play a very limited role, if any, in the assessment of punitive damage awards. Meanwhile, such misconduct continues to be used by courts to significantly enhance the sentences of criminal defendants, an asymmetry accentuated by California v. …

Damaged Goods: Why, In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Jurisprudence, Congress Must Amend The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael S. Vitale

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since the 1980s, a wide range of courts and commentators have expressed concern over large punitive damages awards handed out by civil juries against a wide array of tortfeasors. A late 2001 study revealed that from 1985 to 2001, eight multi-billion dollar punitive damages awards were granted, with four of them being handed down in the years 1999 to 2001 alone.' Not surprisingly, all but one of these verdicts were handed down against large corporations. Among the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens in particular has regularly noted the especially dangerous tendency the current punitive …

Purposeless Restraints: Fourteenth Amendment Rationality Scrutiny And The Constitutional Review Of Prison Sentences, Michael P. Oshea

ExpressO

This Article presents an analysis and defense of the Supreme Court's current Eighth Amendment case law on prison sentencing. I argue that in the pivotal cases of Ewing v. California and Harmelin v. Michigan, a plurality of the Supreme Court has assimilated Eighth Amendment review of individual prison sentences to rationality review of state action under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. When the cases are read rightly, it becomes clear that Eighth Amendment review does not really ask whether a sentence is "grossly disproportionate," as the Court has asserted; rather, it seeks to identify arbitrary and capricious prison sentences …

Certifying Mandatory Punitive Damages Classes In A Post-Ortiz And State Farm World, Aileen L. Nagy

Vanderbilt Law Review

Punitive damages are a civil penalty "aimed at deterrence and retribution" that further the state's interest in punishing unlawful conduct.' They are meant to "sting" and should be imposed proportionally according to the "egregiousness of the harm and the wealth of the transgressor." While compensatory damages are intended to compensate plaintiffs for their concrete losses, punitive damages use the plaintiff as an instrument for "visiting [] punishment upon [the] extreme tortious misdeeds" of defendants. As such, it is well settled that no individual plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages; however, "it is equally true that no transgressor is entitled to …

Punishing Tobacco Industry Misconduct: The Case For Exceeding A Single Digit Ratio Between Punitive And Compensatory Damages, Sara D. Guardino, Richard A. Daynard

ExpressO

This article addresses large punitive damages awards that juries have granted to plaintiffs in recent cases against the tobacco industry, and demonstrates why such high awards are a warranted and necessary incentive for the companies to change their dangerous course of conduct.

In State Farm v. Campbell, the United States Supreme Court announced that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages” will be constitutional. In a subsequent smoking and health case brought against Philip Morris, however, a state appeals court allowed a punitive damages award that was almost 97 times the compensatory damages award. This decision …

Whiten V. Pilot Ins. Co.: The Unofficial Death Of The Independent Wrong Requirement And Official Birth Of Punitive Damages In Contract, Yehuda Adar Dr.

Yehuda Adar Dr.

Three years have passed since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its controversial decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. In that case, the Court affirmed an almost unprecedented punitive damage award by a jury of one million dollars against an insurance company. More importantly, the Whiten decision appears to be the first attempt by the Supreme Court to construct a comprehensive set of rules and principles in light of which punitive damages cases should be decided in the future. While the extraordinary monetary sanction upheld by the Court has attracted much attention in legal and commercial circles, it seems …

The Road From Nowhere? Punitive Damage Ratios After Bmw V. Gore And State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Campbell, Andrew C. W. Lund

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article offers a brief introduction to BMW and its immediate aftermath. After the decision was handed down in 1996, scholars found that punitive damage award ratios were still arbitrary. In Part III, one hypothesis given to explain this result--that not enough time had elapsed since BMW to allow lower courts to come to grips with its lessons--is examined and dismissed after observing how post-BMW courts continued to give shape to the guideposts well beyond 1996. Part IV offers a different hypothesis, which better explains why punitive damage awards behaved arbitrarily. The cause of ratios' weakness lay in the BMW …

The Theory Of Penalties And The Economics Of Criminal Law, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This paper presents a model of penalties that reconciles the conflicting accounts optimal punishment by Becker, who argued penalties should internalize social costs, and Posner, who suggested penalties should completely deter offenses. The model delivers specific recommendations as to when penalties should be set to internalize social costs and when they should be set to completely deter offensive conduct. I use the model to generate a positive account of the function and scope of criminal law doctrines, such as intent, necessity, and rules governing the distinction between torts and crimes. The model is also consistent with the history of criminal …

When Contracting Around The Law Will Not Work: The Potential Inability To Expressly Prohibit Punitive Damages In Arbitration, Alexia Norris

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Just as the availability of all appropriate remedies is an important part of judicial litigation, the attempt to identify and limit those remedies is an issue in an arbitration proceeding. After the United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., it seemed clear that parties would be allowed to seek punitive damages if an agreement did not expressly prohibit such damages. Even so, parties continue to falter in writing agreements meant to contain the proper language that will succeed in limiting the availability of certain remedies. This is due to the continued confusion over how …

Superseding Attorney's Fees And Pre-Judgment Interest After House Bill 4., Jonathan Yedor, Regina M. Uhl

St. Mary's Law Journal

Supersedeas is a rule of procedure allowing a judgment debtor to suspend enforcement of a judgment “by posting security set by the trial court” during the pendency of an appeal. The purpose of it is to “protect[ ] the [prevailing] party [following trial and entry of judgment] from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and [to] compensate[]’” the prevailing party “for delay in the entry of final judgment.” This means the changes are meant to ensure a judgment debtor does not lose the right to appeal simply because the bond on judgment is too expensive so as to be …