Punitive Damages Decision
I don't usually use this space just to post news but I thought it worth pointing out that the Supreme Court today issued a remarkable ruling on punitive damages. In Philip Morris USA v. Williams the Court held that the due process clause forbids a state from including in the measure of punitive damages harm done to persons other than plaintiffs. Among other things, the case produced an interesting alignment. Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito. The dissenters were Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Discuss amongst yourselves.
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 1:29 PM
4 Comments:
At 8:30 PM,
egarber said…
It appears that the court stayed away from the question of what constitutes "excessive" punitive damages under the constitution. This seems to have been more about clear direction to the jury on issues like standing.
At 12:03 AM,
Sobek said…
One interesting aspect of the case is that Ginsburg notes in her dissent that PM only properly preserved one objection -- the propriety of the proposed instruction -- and that the Court did not even rule on that instruction.
This is interesting in light of Prof. Dorf's observations about Roberts' restricted view of standing and the scope of cert, as for example in Norfolk Southern Railroad.
At 6:39 AM,
Charles Thomas said…
It makes no sense. Juries should not consider harm to others as a basis to award punitives, but they may consider harm to others as a gauge of reprehensibility when awarding punitives.
How are 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty supposed to walk a razor's edge like that? The rule makes no sense whatsoever.
At 10:45 AM,
Sobek said…
"How are 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty supposed to walk a razor's edge like that?"
Ginsburg (joined by Scalia and Thomas) confessed even she couldn't walk that razor's edge.
Post a Comment
<< Home