U.S. Supreme Court Limits Punitive-Damage Awards

Bloomberg ^ | 4/7/3 | Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo

[WaveThatFlag]

The U.S. Supreme Court put new limits on punitive damages, striking down a $145 million award State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. was told to pay a Utah couple in a dispute over an accident claim.

The 6-3 ruling said the U.S. Constitution in most cases limits punitive damages to 10 times the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The punitive award against State Farm was 145 times the $1 million the couple had won for mental anguish they suffered when the insurer wouldn't settle a claim against them.

[wimpycat]

I understand what you're saying. Punitive=punishment. But this still isn't an 8th Amendment issue, because punitive awards aren't paid to the state. Take it up with Congressman Billybob from here on out, because I'm only repeating what he said on the radio.

[APBaer]

That's incorrect.
Few states have statutes about punitive damages.
Punitive damages were known at common law.
Originated in something called amercements,
later paid to injured party rather than the state.

[js1138]

What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

Perhaps because there's nothing in the constitution that mentions this new "right".

[johnb838]

Is this hugh? It sounds hugh to me! I HATE trial lawyers.

[hchutch]

Suit yourself.

[RobRoy]

Not the supreme courts business?

[johnb838]

Trial lawyers had themselves a little shakedown racket going. Perfectly legal. Now its not. Too bad, my heart bleeds. Gotta love a supreme court decision -- no appeals, no reversals.

This is another bloody nose for the demons. It is going to slash their campaign budgets dramatically. And help the economy, which is also bad for them.

[judgeandjury]

They probably dissented because the Constitution says nothing about limiting punitive damage awards.

Are all U.S. Supreme Court decisions supposed to be based solely on what the U.S. Constitution says?

[No.6]

"We have struck a blow against the trial lawyers. One they cannot appeal, by the way. "

Agreed. If companies commit malicious actions against the people as others here have alleged, their corporate officers should be held criminally liable, just as they are when they commit securities or other fraud.

There's no reason a cup of hot coffee needs to be anyone's retirement ticket.

[mabelkitty]

I agree.

Maybe they all really really agreed with each other, and drew lots to see which ones received voodoo doll curses from the trial lawyers.

[hchutch]

Agreed. This is a victory, and we should treat it as such.

This is a major plank of tort reform. Let's see ATLA vote out the folks who imposed it.

Oh, yeah, they CAN'T. This was SCOTUS!

[WaveThatFlag]

No. You can be sued for the multi million dollars you got through fraud and made to pay every cent of that back to the widows and orphans. This decision just says that the jury can't then decide they don't like you and fine you 145 times the actual damages.

OK, now lets say your son is dating the ex-wife of a certain Hall of Fame running back. In a fit of jealousy, the football player kills you son and his girlfriend. A jury of retarded people lets the football player off the hook. CAn you still sue him for every cent he's got?

[mabelkitty]

Not only that, in "theory" Miguel Estrada should have been put on the bench already.

"In Theory", that is correct, but if the benches are being obstructed, then we have a problem much larger than Constituional grounds on punitive damages.

[Congressman Billybob]

Several folks have poked me with a stick to get involved in this thread. I do so, but with the caveat that I haven't read the decisions (majority and dissent) as yet.

In response to your comment, no I do not feel it is a good idea for "our side" on the Supreme Court to engage in "judicial activism," meaning tit for tat. Judicial activism is ALWAYS the enemy of the Constitution, no matter who uses it, or when, or why, or on whatever issue. Everyone who respects the Constitution should oppose judicial activism with every fiber of their beings.

I don't view this case as that. It looks to be a "common law" thing, instead. Yes, there is such a thing as common law at the federal level. Still, I have my doubts about the logic of the majority -- but no doubts about the practical effects of the decision. I'll spell those out in detail in my monthly column on constitutional law.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "The Berlin Solution to the Baghdad Problem."

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[mabelkitty]

Yeah!

And just like vouchers and teachers, they, too, will understand that all the donations to evil factions such as DNC and DLC cannot change their future status in this great country.

[johnb838]

Can you hear that sound? It's the sound of projects that were unprofitable yesterday being reevaluated today. It's the sound of Doctors being sucked back into black holes that had forced them out due to unmanageable malpractice insurance rates. It's the sound of employees and retirees purchasing medications that they needed but couldn't afford due to spiraling pharmaceutical liability insurance costs. It's the sound of the air leaking out of the tires of the socialist medicare drug coverage wagon as the artificial pressure on drug prices is removed. And its the sound of a bunch of shysters sharpening their knives to cut each other up because the pickins just got a whole lot slimmer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA!!!

[hchutch]

My major question, though is whether or not we will be able to get that genie (judicial activism) back in the bottle.

Current efforts for strict constructionists are stalling - so we may need to have some means to up the ante.

[headsonpikes]

I think AP's point, at least the one that I thought he was making, was that a similar upper limit of proportionality should be available to indigent small-time minor offeners as to the corporations cited in the article.

I, for one, think the U.S. lawyer-driven tort system can often degenerate into a sort of village soviet, seizing the kulak's illgotten wealth. See Mississippi, for instance.

I hope that's not too extreme a view.

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes. In your hypothetical, the parents of the two people killed by O.J. simpson can sue for damages in civil court. That is not connected to, or controlled by, any criminal case on the same facts.

Use the most common distinction that almost everyone has experience with, to explain the difference. Two cars collide at an intersection. Investigating police either cannt determine who was at fault, or charge one driver with failing to yield but that driver is found not guilty.

Does the lack of a criminal guilt finding prevent in any way any subsequent civil claim? Absolutely. Both drivers can sue the other, and have at it in civil court. That's the same distinction between O.J. (criminal) and O.J. (civil).

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "The Berlin Solution to the Baghdad Problem."

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[GnL]

Are all U.S. Supreme Court decisions supposed to be based solely on what the U.S. Constitution says?

Is this a rhetorical question?