1 / 8

Due p rocess & p unitive damages

Due p rocess & p unitive damages. Procedural Due Process – review pursuant to the 14 th amendment to ensure appropriate procedural safeguards Jury instructions must have sufficient guidance and there must be some sort of post verdict judicial review

kieran-huff
Download Presentation

Due p rocess & p unitive damages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Due process & punitive damages • Procedural Due Process – review pursuant to the 14th amendment to ensure appropriate procedural safeguards • Jury instructions must have sufficient guidance and there must be some sort of post verdict judicial review • Substantive Due Process – review for excessiveness • BMW v. Gore’s three guideposts for determining whether punitive damages are excessive under the 14th amendment: • Reprehensibility of D • Ratio of punitivesdamages to likely/actual harm caused by D • Other civil/criminal penalties available for D’s conduct

  2. State Farm – refining Gore’s guideposts • State Farm majority held that the 1stGore guidepost (D’s reprehensibility) was the most important indicium of whether punitive damages are reasonable. • What are indicia of reprehensibility? • How does the Court believe State Farm fared under these indicia? Do you agree? • What role does the out-of-state conduct or dissimilar conduct play in the Court’s decision that punitive damages are excessive? Do you agree?

  3. State Farm & Gore guideposts 2 & 3 • Regarding Gore’s 2nd guidepost – what presumption regarding the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages does the Court establish? • When is this Court likely to see deviation from single digit multipliers as acceptable? • Is D’s wealth a legitimate consideration? • What is the relevance of the 3rd guidepost – other fines/penalties?

  4. Philip Morris & Co. v. Williams (2007) • P’s husband died of lung cancer after smoking. P sued D for fraud claiming D had known for 40 years that cigarettes caused cancer but concealed information from the public and/or lied about it (decedent relied on those lies to continue smoking). Jury awarded $525,000 in compensatories (after remittance) and $79.5 million in punitives. Oregon SCT upheld award after applying Gore’s guideposts. D challenged the lower court’s jury instructions. • P’s attorney told jury to “think about how many other Jesse Williams in the last 40 years in the State of Oregon there have been….” • Jury instruction:“Punitive damages are awarded against a D to punish misconduct and to deter misconduct” and “are not intended to compensate P or anyone else for damages caused by the D’s conduct.” • State court rejected D’s request for a different instruction telling jury they could consider harm suffered by others in determining relationship of D’s conduct to P’s harm BUT that it could not punish D for the impact of its alleged misconduct on other persons who may bring lawsuits of their own

  5. Philip Morris Co v. Williams – Supreme Court • Why does the SCT reverse the award – i.e., what does the jury instruction allow the jury to do? • Is this a procedural due process (lack of adequate safeguards) problem or a substantive due process (direct review of excessiveness) problem? • After Williams, can juries still take into account the harm D has caused to other people D in determining the reprehensibility of D’s conduct (Gore guidepost #1)? • What must lower courts do to ensure that juries seek “simply to determine reprehensibility” but not “punish for harm caused strangers?” • http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=7659

  6. Punitive Damages For Breach of Contract • General Rule: No punitive damages for breach of contract unless there is an independent tort in the contract setting that can be the basis of the punitive damages award. • WHY this general hostility to punitive damages in breach of contract? • Tradition – forms of action are separate • Hostility to punitive damages – courts don’t want to extend beyond torts and “open the floodgates” of litigation • Deterrent effect on entering contracts could be too significant

  7. Independent Torts (Possibly) Supporting Punitive Damages In Breach of Contract Situations • Fraud • Examples – Formosa, Haslip,State Farm, Gore • Conversion (theft) • Haslip (alternative theory) • Bad-Faith Breach (insurance only?) • State Farm – excellent example • Tortious Interference with contract/business relations • Courts usually require that D’s breach of contract w/ P have the purpose of interfering w/ P’s other relationships – NOT enough that D knew could hurt other relationships • Gross Negligence (?) • Usually not a basis for punitives in breach of contract UNLESS there is some physical harm to person or property other than that under the contract • Ordinary negligence is never the basis for punitives (contract or not)

  8. Formosa Plastics v. Presidio Engineers • Formosa invited Presidio to bid on a construction project for concrete foundations. Sent a bid package w/ representations re each parties’ obligations on (1) ordering & delivery of material, (2) work schedule, (3) beginning/end dates. • Presidio relied on these representations to enter a bid, which was accepted. • Job was substantially delayed, ended up costing far more than estimated. • Presidio discovered that Formosa intentionally lied about the bid package & ran a scheme to induce contractors to make low bids & then stay in the game even after the Formosa breached its obligations • Jury found fraud and awarded punitive damages. Texas SCT upheld despite Formosa’s argument that this was merely breach of K. Fraud was an independent tort. • Doesn’t most of Presidio’s damage come from breach of contract? What is it about fraudulent inducement that makes us so willing to award punitives? • What if D intentionally began scheduling deliveries or multiple workmen after the project began? Is that fraud or just intentional breach? Is timing everything on these sorts of claims for punitive damages? Why?

More Related