In considering the amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct including whether the conduct that harmed the plaintiff was particularly reprehensible because it also caused actual harm or posed a substantial risk of harm to people who are not parties to this case.
Full Answer
As stated earlier, the defense attorney should be aware of the fact that the laws pertaining to punitive damages differ considerably among jurisdictions. When the defense attorney is without particular knowledge of the punitive damages rules in a given jurisdiction, those rules must be carefully researched.
Punitive damages might also be appropriate in a premises liability case when an apartment complex knows that the gate to an otherwise unguarded swimming pool is broken, but fails to fix it even though it is aware of numerous toddlers in the complex.
Finally, counsel should work hand-in-hand with corporate management at the earliest stages of preparation in order to create an impression of corporate harmony and to avoid damaging statements from all levels of the corporation. Counsel should also be sure to discuss with the defendant the cost involved in defending the punitive damages claim.
To ensure that unconstitutional punishment is not imposed in the form of punitive damages, the Court has set forth three "guideposts" for courts to consider in reviewing punitive damages awards: "(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm ...
California law defines fraud, for the purposes of awarding punitive damages, to mean:“Intentional misrepresentation, deceit,” or.“Concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”
6 Factors That Determine Your Punitive DamagesThe nature of your injuries.The unreasonableness of the defendant's conduct.The comparative strength of the defendant to you.Your change in life following the event.Your compensatory damages.The defendant's resources.
Simple Negligence Thus, a defendant might challenge a punitive damages award by arguing that the theory under which the plaintiff prevailed does not support punitive damages.
In most states, the jury is instructed to consider both objective and subjective factors. These factors include the reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct, the amount of punitive damages that would deter the defendant based on the defendant's wealth, and the nature of the plaintiff's injury.
While the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant — and set an example — rather than compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will still receive all or some of the damages awarded.
Clear and convincing evidence is the burden of proof the California courts place on recovering punitive damages during a civil claim. This standard requires proof that the evidence presented is substantially more likely to be true than not true. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff.
Overview. Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances. Punitive damages are considered punishment and are typically awarded at the court's discretion when the defendant's behavior is found to be especially harmful.
The Four Elements of a TortThe accused had a duty, in most personal injury cases, to act in a way that did not cause you to become injured.The accused committed a breach of that duty.An injury occurred to you.The breach of duty was the proximate cause of your injury.
Another strategy to defeat or mitigate punitive damages when compensatory liability is found is to show that the defendant has remedied whatever caused the plaintiff's harm and/or that the defendant has already been punished for its conduct.
CALIFORNIA California has no cap on either punitive or compensatory damages, and the collateral source rule applies.
Punitive damages are awarded when the court wants to punish the responsible party for their outrageous conduct. These damages are also meant to prevent others from engaging in future similar conduct.
If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting the amount. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their purposes but should not reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In considering the amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility ...
Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or rights, or if the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights under federal law.
For example, several states in the Ninth Circuit require proof by clear and convincing evidence before punitive damages are awarded on a state law claim. On the other hand, a preponderance of the evidence standard has been upheld for punitive damages in certain federal claims. See, e.g.,
If you find for the plaintiff, you may, but are not required to, award punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be awarded to compensate a plaintiff.
. . it is also constitutionally permissible for a district court to delay the reasonable relationship inquiry until the judge’s post-verdict review.". Id.
The Dang court held it was reversible error to decline to instruct that "oppressive acts" were an alternative basis for punitive damages in a § 1983 case. Similarly, punitive damages claims arising under state law are subject to state law standards for recovery which should be reflected in a modified jury instruction.
In liability insurance focusing on US risks, punitive damage exposures hang heavy over risk assessment. Punitive damages are unpredictable by nature and can be crushingly explosive in value.
In the legendary McDonald’s hot coffee case from 1994, 11 a 79-year-old woman was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages against McDonald’s after she suffered third-degree burns from coffee that spilled on her lap.
In 2018, a California jury awarded approximately $80 million in damages against Monsanto to a groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma allegedly from using Monsanto’s Roundup® weed killer product for years. 12 The jury awarded $75 million in punitive damages, which was 15 times the size of the $5 million compensatory award.
Another case demonstrating the lack of any bright-line rules on the limits of punitive damages awards is a case from South Carolina stemming from a 2014 accident in a Target parking lot. In that case, a toddler accidently stabbed her mother in the hand with a used syringe she found lying in the parking lot.
Commonly considered factors include: How egregious or reprehensible the defendant’s actions were. Whether similar cases ended with punitive damages being awarded.
While the exact limits vary from state to state, each court can only award an amount that is considered relatively proportionate and reasonable. In general, the amount of punitive damages cannot exceed four times ...
There are many types of damages awarded in order to compensate people in either civil or criminal court cases. While compensatory and punitive damages are the most common types awarded, these types of broken down further into special categories.
In general, the amount of punitive damages cannot exceed four times the amount of compensatory damages that are awarded to a plaintiff. For instance, if a plaintiff is awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages, the court would not typically award him more than $200,000 in punitive damages, unless special circumstances existed.
Both punitive and compensatory damages are monetary amounts that may be awarded to a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. Compensatory damages are the most commonly awarded type of damages, as they are intended to compensate the plaintiff for loss of money or property due to ...
The legal term punitive damages refers to a monetary award ordered by the court to be paid by a defendant to the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. While it is common for a plaintiff to be awarded money to pay for a wrong committed by the defendant, such as money to pay medical bills, or for property damage, punitive damages are awarded only for the purpose of punishing the defendant for his conduct. A punitive damages award is paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. To explore this concept, consider the following punitive damages definition.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury ordered the company to pay, in addition to compensatory damages, $240 million dollars in punitive damages. Hyundai appealed the extraordinary amount of punitive damages, based on the state’s laws limiting such awards.
Punitive damages are also called exemplary damages. They are awarded both to deter the defendant and others from conduct similar to the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit, and to punish the defendant. They are often awarded to set a public example. Punitive damages are awarded infrequently, but they may be appropriate in many situations ...
Wealthy or corporate wrongdoers typically face higher punitive damages awards than less wealthy defendants because it will take more to deter them from similar conduct in the future. In many states, there are limits on the size of the punitive damages award.
They may not be more than two or three times the amount of compensatory damages. The United States Supreme Court has found that punitive damages that are four times the amount of compensatory damages are close to excessive but are still constitutional.
In most states, the jury is instructed to consider both objective and subjective factors. These factors include the reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct, the amount of punitive damages that would deter the defendant based on the defendant's wealth, and the nature of the plaintiff's injury. Defendants often ask that the jury be instructed ...
However, in some cases, punitive damages are awarded in insurance bad faith cases that arise under an insurance policy. This is because in some instances the insurer's breach of contract is so wrongful that it breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a tort. The amount of punitive damages is left to the jury's discretion.
Punitive Damages. In a civil case, a plaintiff can request an award of punitive damages. Unlike compensatory damages, which compensate plaintiffs for their concrete losses, punitive damages seek to punish defendants for their egregious conduct and to deter defendants and others from engaging in similar behavior.
Because the imposition of excessive punitive damages may be unfair to a defendant, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed limits on the amount of punitive damages that a jury may award in civil cases. In BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 599 (1995), a jury had awarded plaintiff $4,000 in compensatory damages because BMW had failed to disclose ...
599 (1995), a jury had awarded plaintiff $4,000 in compensatory damages because BMW had failed to disclose that it has repainted plaintiff's car, which the plaintiff had purchased as new. BMW had a policy of repairing and repainting vehicles damaged in transport and selling them as new. The jury also awarded $4 million in punitive ...
In a Georgia case, the Supreme Court let stand a $250 million punitive damages award against Time Warner. Despite the large dollar amount, the punitive damages award was only double the compensatory damages award.
The Alabama Supreme Court subsequently reduced this amount to $2 million. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the $2 million punitive damages award was grossly excessive and in violation the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court outlined three factors that courts may consider in evaluating the size of punitive awards.
In Dr. Gore's case, the Supreme Court found that BMW's behavior was not so reprehensible to justify the award, since only economic damage was involved . While the Court declined to specify a mathematical formula, the Court said that the 500-to-1 ratio of the punitive damages award to the actual damages "must surely raise a judicial eyebrow.".
The Court added that to justify a higher ratio, a plaintiff would have to show that "a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.". In Oregon, the estate of a deceased smoker had sued Philip Morris for knowingly and falsely leading the deceased to believe that smoking was safe.
Punitive damages seek to punish the defendant for improper conduct. As such, it’s important that the amount awarded is proportionate to their level of wealth — ergo richer defendants should have to pay more so that they learn their lesson and refrain from similar behavior in the future. As stated in the case Neal v.
Punitive damages are a distinct type of damages that are available only in a few specified circumstances. Punitive damages serve two important functions: Punitive damages are meant to punish particularly egregious behavior by the defendant. See “When are punitive damages available” for more details on what kind of behavior qualifies.
Damages are an essential element of any personal injury lawsuit. Most personal injury cases focus on compensatory damages, which are designed to compensate the plaintiff for the injuries that the defendant caused. But occasionally, a personal injury plaintiff may be able to pursue both compensatory damages and what are known as punitive damages.
Punitive damages are sometimes referred to as “exemplary” damages because they also serve as an example to dissuade the defendant from behaving that way in the future, but more so to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
The largest punitive damage awarded in the 1800s was a measly $4,500. Even in 1998 dollars that only comes up to $72,000. The largest modern punitive damage award in California was $75,000 — a record that stood until 1955. Punitive damages remained relatively minor until Harmsen v.
That means that if the initial award was $100,000 then the punitive damage award cannot exceed $1,000,000. In fact, due to some plaintiffs claiming impractical amounts for punitive damages, many states have set a cap on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded within their jurisdiction.
Punitive damages remained relatively minor until Harmsen v. Smith — a securities fraud class action — in which a San Diego federal jury awarded $14,750,000 in punitive damages — the largest award to that day.
United States: How To Defend Effectively A Punitive Damages Claim. If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, ...
Punitive damages in civil actions have been defined as those damages which are awarded ". . . against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others like him from similar conduct in the future." 3 A defendant who has an "evil motive" or "reckless indifference to the rights of others" is to be punished and that punishment is achieved through the imposition of punitive damages. 4
Finally, defense counsel must recognize that the burden of proof for punitive damages claims differs between jurisdictions. For example, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that the standard in that state for recovery of punitive damages is proof of the misconduct by "clear and convincing evidence." 33 In Maine, Idaho, Arizona, and California, punitive damages may be awarded only when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice or engaged in wanton, gross or outrageous conduct. 34 In Colorado, punitive damages may only be recovered based on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." 35 Clearly, the general rule regarding punitive damages and a plaintiff’s burden of proof is that there is no general rule and, as such, defense attorneys must carefully research the plaintiff’s burden of proof when a punitive damages claim is made.
A. Examining Choice Of Law: Because the law’s affecting punitive damages vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the defense lawyer may need to spend considerable time analyzing choice of law issues, if appropriate, based on the facts of the case.
During the pleading stage, if the facts warrant it, defense counsel should consider arguing that the plaintiff’s actions "provoked" the defendant’s conduct , and as such, mitigate the plaintiff’s possible exemplary recovery. At least two courts have held that " [p]rovocation, while not a justification or a defense in an action for compensatory damages for an assault, may be considered in mitigation of exemplary damages." 45
When the plaintiff’s underlying cause of action is based upon an alleged intentional tort , defense counsel should consider pleading one or more of the common law privileges to intentional torts. 43 If the defendant’s conduct is later found to have been privileged, the plaintiff’s underlying action will be defeated, along with the claim for punitive damages. Moreover, to the extent that a privilege must be proved as an affirmative defense, alleging it will allow the defense to "present its own case" and not merely rely on cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. 44
One of the major constitutional arguments against punitive damages is based on the Fourteenth Amendment’ s Due Process Clause, which requires that legal proceedings be consistent with fundamental fairness, ordinary notions of fair play and settled rules of law, and not offend the community’s sense of decency.
The standard for an award of punitive damages is that a defendant manifest evil or malicious conduct beyond any breach of professional duty. ”. See Dupree v.
The safest way for litigants to attempt to control risks associated with trying such cases now is through pretrial motion practice, either at the summary judgment or in limine stage, to eliminate the punitive damage claim.
There, the First Department upheld a grant of partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages in a dental malpractice claim because the claims made did not rise above an ordinary malpractice claim. On the other hand, some courts are unwilling to consider such a motion. See Messner v.
The First and Second Departments both require clear and convincing evidence before a finding of punitive damages can be made.
Without clearer guidelines from the appellate courts as to what constitutes sufficient grounds for charging punitive damages, a trial judge’s authority to charge punitive damages in mass tort cases remains unclear. The safest way for litigants to attempt to control risks associated with trying such cases now is through pretrial motion practice, ...
It further states “ [a]n act is malicious when it is done deliberately with knowledge of the plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to interfere with those rights. An act is wanton and reckless when it demonstrates conscious indifference and utter disregard of its effect upon the health, safety and rights of others.”. See id.
We therefore conclude that, because the jury found that defendant acted with reckless disregard for decedent's safety, the court did not abuse its discretion by charging the jury on the issue of punitive damages.”. See Drabczyk at 1260.
In a civil case, there are three types of damages: compensatory, nominal, and punitive.
In the late 1990s and 2000s, several suits were brought against tobacco companies. Betty Bullock sued Philip Morris, a cigarette manufacturer, for negligence, product liability and fraud. Ms. Bullock, a lifelong smoker, was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in 2001.