If a plaintiff raises a federal cause of action, financial information is not required until the jury has decided that punitive damages should be awarded. Barber v Rancho Mortgage & Inv. Corp. (1994) 26 CA4th 1819, 1842 n26, 32 CR2d 906. Thus, the Adams rule was not applied in Chavez v Keat (1995) 34 CA4th 1406, 41 CR2d 72. The court said that “the opinion defended by Adams in California is not generally defended” and does not apply to federal lawsuits heard in state court because it is substantial in nature. 34 CA4. c. 1410; see also Barber v.
Rancho Mortgage & Inv. Corp., op. cit. Cit. (Proof of financial position is a question of substantive law, so federal standards apply if the plaintiff has filed a federal cause of action in state court.) Some states, called divided recovery states, also have laws that require a plaintiff to share punitive damages with the state. In these states, 50% to 75% of punitive damages awarded are typically paid to the state. While there has been criticism of the prescribed percentage “limits” for punitive damages, arbitral awards that exceed those limits have also raised objections. Taking the California example, courts have generally found that punitive damages of more than 15% of a defendant`s net worth are excessive. Little v Stuyvesant Life Ins. Co. (1977)67 CA3d 451, 469, 136 CR 653; see also Michelson v. Hamada (1994)29 CA4th 1566, 1595, 36 CR2d 343 (compensation for 28% of defendant`s net assets is inflated).
Gifts that make up more than 30% of a defendant`s net worth are often dismissed as excessive. Merlo v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (1976) 59 CA3d 5, 18, 130 CR 416 (punitive damages amounting to 30% of defendant`s net assets are inflated); Zhadan v Downtown L.A. Motors (1976)66 CA3d 481, 500, 136 CR 132 (punitive damages equal to one-third of defendant`s net assets are inflated). Dr. Gore sued BMW, saying BMW`s failure to disclose that the car had been repainted was the removal of an important fact.
He claimed his actual damage was $4,000, based on testimony from a former BMW dealer who said a newly painted BMW was worth about 10 percent less than a car without the repairs. Dr. Gore also sought $4 million in punitive damages. He arrived at this number by multiplying the $4,000 in actual damage he had suffered by 1,000, the approximate number of “new” cars sold by BMW with unknown repairs. In some cases, the amount of punitive damages that a defendant must pay to the plaintiff can be extremely high. This applies in particular in cases where the unlawful conduct of the defendant is particularly despicable and intentional. Regardless of the laws of a particular state, the majority requires the plaintiff to seek damages before punitive damages can be considered or awarded. Although the manner in which punitive damages are calculated varies considerably from state to state, certain factors are generally considered when calculating punitive damages, including: Punitive damages are an established practice of American common law that is traditionally assessed against defendants in civil cases to punish past misconduct and deter future misconduct. But because they have become more frequent in recent judgments, they have received increased attention. The main issue today is no longer whether defendants should pay punitive damages; It is generally accepted that punitive damages are both legally and politically appropriate in certain circumstances. Instead, the current controversy focuses on the appropriate amount of punitive damages that should be awarded and how that amount should be calculated.
Do you need help in a punitive damages case? Still not sure what punitive damages are? Call us today at (708) 400-0000 to speak with one of our world-class lawyers. We offer a free phone consultation with no strings attached, so don`t hesitate to call us if you have any questions about government caps or qualification criteria. You can also use our contact page to make a request. In addition, the Court concluded that, unless only token damages are awarded, punitive damages should not exceed nine times the damages, so there is a ratio of punitive damages to damages of 9:1 or less. If a trial court or jury awards $100,000 in damages to a plaintiff, it must award less than $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The only exception to this rule is when a case is extremely egregious or offensive to the court. As noted earlier, most personal injury cases do not raise issues of punitive damages, but as LeSanche shows, they certainly can in appropriate circumstances. Punitive damages are awarded in an amount proportionate to the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff. If punitive damages were awarded in excessive amounts, most members of the legal community would consider it unconstitutional. In fact, there is a certain limit that cannot be exceeded when awarding punitive damages. As mentioned above, punitive damages should only be awarded if a defendant acted blatantly.
Here are some of the factors that may affect whether or not to award punitive damages: BAJI §14.71. These guidelines proposed to the jury contain both subjective and objective elements. The first factor – the reprehensibility of the defendant`s conduct – is subjective. The other two – the defendant`s assets and the relationship to actual damage – are objective measures. The two target components are discussed below. In Huckle v Money (KB 1763)95 Eng Rep 768, punitive damages were first recognized in English common law. The Huckle court held that sentencing not only compensated the plaintiff for damages such as psychological suffering, wounded dignity, and hurt feelings, but also served to punish the defendant for gross misconduct. See also Wilkes/Wood (KB 1763) 98 Eng Rep 489, cited in Exemplary Damages in the Law of Torts, 70 Harv L Rev 517, 519 (1957) (`Exemplary Damages`). Shortly thereafter, U.S. courts also recognized punitive damages. In Genay v Norris (1784)1 SC 3, 1 Bay 6, the plaintiff was awarded punitive damages for damages suffered after drinking wine that had been falsified by the defendant as a practical joke. In Day v Woodworth (1851)54 US 363, 371, the United States Supreme Court stated that the doctrine of punitive damages had been supported by “repeated judicial decisions for more than a century.” Sources:www.law.cornell.edu/wex/punitive_damageswww.courthousenews.com/punitive-damages-allowed-under-nyc-law-second-circuit-rules/3 Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, are damages awarded in bodily injury actions in addition to damages.
They can be awarded by courts and juries. The majority of states allow plaintiffs to seek punitive damages in civil matters, although each state has its own rules and regulations governing the types of cases in which punitive damages may be claimed, as well as other limitations. For example, some states allow punitive damages only if the defendant acted with intent to harm. Punitive damages are damages awarded in addition to contemporaneous damages. They are given as punishment for serious misconduct on the part of the accused and as a means of deterring the accused and others from behaving in this manner. Anything above a 10:1 ratio is considered unconstitutional. This means that if the original award was $100,000, punitive damages cannot exceed $1,000,000. Because some claimants claim unworkable amounts for punitive damages, many states have set a cap on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in their jurisdiction. Although the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant — and to lead by example — rather than compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff receives some or all of the damages awarded. For this reason, some have speculated that some law firms unnecessarily insist that their clients seek punitive damages so that they can maximize their profits. The courts apply punitive damages in about 5% of judgments. Recently, the courts have begun to assess the appropriateness of awarding punitive damages in relation to the amount of damages awarded.
Although the Supreme Court did not set a specific test when courts consider punitive damages, it wrote in State Farm v. Campbell (2003) that lower courts should focus on reprehensibility and acceptable rates of punitive damages. Punitive damages may be awarded for a breach caused negligently or intentionally. If a person is negligent and should have known that their actions would result in significant damages, they may be liable for punitive damages. On the other hand, in order for punitive damages to be awarded, a plaintiff must generally prove that the defendant acted intentionally (intentional tort) or grossly or recklessly negligent, although the exact requirements vary from state to state. Unlike damages, punitive damages are not recoverable by law. McAllister v South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (1986) 183 CA3d 653, 659, 228 CR 351. The amount of punitive damages is at the discretion of the jury (Coats v Construction & Gen. Laborers Local No. 185 (1971) 15 CA3d 908, 916, 93 CR 639) and is determined taking into account the nature of the defendant`s misconduct, the nature and extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff and the defendant`s property.
In the end, Liebeck received $200,000 in damages — later reduced to $160,000 after the jury determined she was liable for 20 percent of the oil spill — and $2.7 million in punitive damages — later reduced to $480,000 to limit Liebeck`s price to three times what she had earned for damages.
