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.

[cksharks]

People keep talking about what is not in the constitution,is their anything in the constitution about so called punitive damages. I just dont ever remember reading that anywhere.

[Dane]

Here is the text of Thomas dissent: "I would affirm the judgment below because 'I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards.'"

Here is Scalia's: "the Due Process clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages."

I have read that after every case(Gore vs. Bush being the exception) heard before SCOTUS all nine justices have lunch and basically discuss the case and vote there. A Justice is then decided to write the majority opinion and a Justice is decided to write the dissenting opinion.

Scalia and Thomas's dissent can placate the absolutist word "Constitutionalist" Libertarians, while Ginsburg dissent placates the activist left.

And all in all, SCOTUS strikes down the economic damage done to this country by trial lawyers.

[Huck]

Bookmark this decision. It is a perfect way to disprove standard liberal assumptions about conservative justices (i.e., that they are activists advancing a "conservative" or GOP agenda.) Clearly, what you have here are 2 justices (Scalia and Thomas) who favor a certain interprative standard, and 7 others--including Ginsberg--who either never follow a standard, or, like GInsberg in this case, only do so when it is convenient.

[Poohbah]

Amendment VIII to the US Constitution:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[APBaer]

Let me see if I understand this:

If you're a big company and commit an horrendous multi million dollar fraud of widows and orphans, you are protected from the persons you defrauded because the Court says the punishment has to be proportional to the actual damages.

But, as we learned from the Court last week, if you're a poor dumb crook, who swipes a few CDs three times, the Court says the punishment of life imprisionment does *Not* have to be proportional to the actual damages, under the three strikes laws.

So an individual is not protected from the State to the same extent that Dewey Cheatem and Howe is protected from an individual.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Yes, but the number 10 is not in the Constitution, it's just an arbitrary rule Kennedy cited. Not the Supreme Court's place to determine a numerical threshold, legislatures should do that.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I have read that after every case(Gore vs. Bush being the exception) heard before SCOTUS all nine justices have lunch and basically discuss the case and vote there. A Justice is then decided to write the majority opinion and a Justice is decided to write the dissenting opinion.

That's more or less right. After the initial vote is taken, The Chief, assuming he is in the majority, assigns the opinion to a certain Justice, who proceeds to write it. Dissenting opinions are usually not assigned; the Justices decide on their own whether to write one or not.

Regardless, once the opinions are drafted, they are circulated amongst the Justices who comment on the substance or whatnot. The other Justices decide if they want to join or concur and it also gives the opposing sides and opportunity to critique the other side's opinion--which produces the occasional (and often entertaining) "Battling Footnotes."

[Poohbah]

Yes, but the number 10 is not in the Constitution, it's just an arbitrary rule Kennedy cited. Not the Supreme Court's place to determine a numerical threshold, legislatures should do that.

They SHOULD do that.

But they haven't. They have REFUSED to do that.

Absent legislative action, the judiciary has to act, or the intent and letter of the Eighth Amendment is subverted.

[APBaer]

" the judiciary has to act, or the intent and letter of the Eighth Amendment is subverted."

Too late on that, they okayed the three strikes laws recently, without regard to any proportionality between the coonduct and the life sentences.

[Poohbah]

Please explain how life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Didn't you ever wonder why the majority didn't cite the 8th Amendment in its decision? Why it wasn't even argued?

It's not relevant. The 8th Amendment is a prohibition on government action, as in criminal cases. Like being convicted of shoplifting and getting a million dollar fine.
A civil case, however, we don't have government action. The case is wholly outside the scope of the government, since the judiciary, in theory, is only a neutral arbitrator. The jury imposes the fine, and the jury is not an agent of the government.

[hchutch]

Considering I disagree with their dissent, I agree. It helps us on one front.

I also wonder if it might not be a bad idea to start considering judicial activism on our side. That genie is out of the bottle to an extent. Judicial activism could be a LOT more fun if TWO sides of the political spectrum got involved.

[APBaer]

It is disproportionate to the actual damages ( the CDs).

The Court has now held in the punitive damage case that the Constitution forbids punishment that is disproportionate to damages. Beats Hell out of me where they found it in the Constittuion, but it seems that they found it and applied it, but not for individuals whom the State wants to punish.

[Stay the course]

Opinion: State Farm v. Campbell

[hchutch]

Agreed. I consider this a victory, and quite frankly, limiting the trial lawyers and their efforts to serve as a furth branch of government is a good thing.

It is not as far as I would go, but we have struck a blow to the trial lawyers that they CANNOT recover from.

[mjustice]

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

There is nothing in the Constitutional about limiting punitive damages, so there really is not much for the SCOTUS to rule on. Ten times actual damages sounds fair, but has no basis in established law.

MJ

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yeah, because it's not that we would want to actually be able to punish companies for flagrant violations of the law or anything.

I mean, heck, if you're a Fortune 500 company, you should be above the law, right?

Today's affirmation (and I stress "affirmation," since this has been the law since 1996) serves to do nothing but further insure that big companies are completely insulated from their wrongdoing.

[Poohbah]

A civil case, however, we don't have government action. The case is wholly outside the scope of the government, since the judiciary, in theory, is only a neutral arbitrator. The jury imposes the fine, and the jury is not an agent of the government.

Wrong. The jury IS an agent of the government; they are paid by the government, and their decision is backed up by the force of the government.

[Dane]

Agreed. I consider this a victory, and quite frankly, limiting the trial lawyers and their efforts to serve as a furth branch of government is a good thing.

It is not as far as I would go, but we have struck a blow to the trial lawyers that they CANNOT recover from.

John Edwards and his cronies are not happy campers today.

SCOTUS just filed a decision against the economic terrorism of trial lawyers.

[Poohbah]

It is disproportionate to the actual damages ( the CDs).

How so?

Trying to steal CDs from my residence can get you thoroughly deceased. Life in prison is much milder by comparison.