California Punitive Damages

Kentucky Court Upholds Award of Punitive Damages to Supervisor Who Authorized Sexual Assault

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:36:00 +0000

You don't see this every day; a court concludes that a supervisor engaged in improper conduct towards an employee, and permits an award of punitive damages to both the employee and the supervisor.

In this published opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed an award of $1.1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages to a McDonald's employee who was subjected to an improper strip search and a sexual assault. While those numbers may seem high, it isn't completely surprising that McDonald's ends up being liable for a sexual assault authorized by a supervisor.

But here's where it gets weird. The supervisor also recovered $100,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages (reduced from the $1 million awarded by the trial court). The supervisor claimed she was tricked by a prank caller into ordering the strip search. According to the supervisor, the prank caller said he was a police officer and asked the supervisor to call her boyfriend (who did not work for McDonald's), and bring him into the store to conduct a body cavity search of the employee. Apparently, that seemed like a reasonable request to her, so she complied. The supervisor's boyfriend then came to the store and sexually assaulted the employee. When McDonald's corporate management learned of the incident, they fired the supervisor. She then sued McDonald's for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Court of Appeals ruled that McDonald's was liable to both the employee and the supervisor because McDonald’s corporate management knew that a prank caller was contacting its stores, pretending to be a police officer and convincing the store managers to conduct strip searches, but McDonald’s made a conscious decision not to train or warn their store managers or employees about the calls. Accordingly, McDonald's must pay half a million dollars to the supervisor who was "duped" into asking her boyfriend to perform a body cavity search on an employee.

Hat tip: ABA Journal

More Punitive Damages Against Pfizer in Prempro Litigation: Philadelphia Jury Awards $28 million

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:55:00 +0000

As reported by Bloomberg, Pfizer has been hit with another big punitive damages award - - $28 million - - in litigation over its hormone replacement drug Prempro.

At the same time, a judge in a separate case involving the same drug formally unsealed a $75 million punitive damages verdict. That verdict, which a jury rendered earlier this month in the same courthouse, was supposed to be confidential but was quickly leaked to the press.

In a third Prempro case, the Eighth Circuit determined earlier this month that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support a claim for punitive damages (but the court ordered a new trial to redetermine the amount of the award).

According to plaintiffs' lawyers, Pfizer faces lawsuits from 10,000 more women who claim injuries from Pfizer's hormone replacement drugs. Pretty soon this is going to add up to some real money.

Related posts:

A Mixed Bag For Pfizer On Prempro Punitive Damages

Jury Awards Undisclosed Amount of Punitive Damages Against Pfizer in Prempro Litigation

Arkansas District Court Vacates $27 Million Punitive Damages Award Against Wyeth and UpJohn

Smoker's Lawyer Says Huge Verdict Was Based on Defendant's Wealth

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:00 +0000

In this AmLaw Litigation Daily story, the plaintiff's attorney who recently won a $244 million punitive damages verdict against Philip Morris says the award was so high because "this was the first trial in which the jury heard about the 'real financial resources' of Philip Morris."

It sounds like future proceedings will involve a fight over the U.S. Supreme Court's statement in State Farm v. Campbell that "[t]he wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award."

Nelson v. Exxon Mobil: Punitive Damages Claims Can Be Assigned

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:55:00 +0000

This published opinion could be headed for the California Supreme Court.

The opinion addresses whether the right to recover punitive damages is assignable under California law. The Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that the right to recover punitive damages is assignable if that right arises from a cause of action that is assignable. The court observed that causes of action arising from an injury of a personal nature (e.g., slander, assault, malicious prosecution) are not assignable. But the injury in this case was groundwater contamination, an injury to real property. The court observed that claims for injury to real property are transferred with the property when title passes from one owner to another. Accordingly, the court concluded that a property owner could assign its right to seek punitive damages in connection with injury to the property.

The court acknowledged that several other cases, including California Supreme Court cases, contain language suggesting that the right to seek punitive damages is never assignable. But the Court of Appeal said the results in those cases could be harmonized with the new rule announced in this opinion. Nevertheless, the result in this case is inconsistent with the plain language of other published opinions, which makes a strong case for Supreme Court review.

Florida Jury Awards $244 Million in Punitive Damages to Smoker

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:41:00 +0000

As reported by Reuters, a Florida jury has awarded $56.6 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages to a smoker with emphysema. This is by far the largest verdict in the 8,000 or so individual trials that are proceeding in Florida as a result of the Florida Supreme Court's 2006 Engle decision, which tossed out a $145 billion class action punitive damages award.

Related posts:

Florida Jury Awards $25 Million in Punitive Damages to Smoker's Widow

"Smokers, tobacco, both winners in early Engle cases"

Jury Rules For Plaintiff in First Phase of Retrial After Reversal of $145 Billion Punitive Damages Award

After Reversal of $145 Billion Class Action Punitive Damages Award, Florida Smokers Seek Punitive Damages in Individual Suits

Plaintiffs' Attorneys Win $218 Million Fee Award for Helping Obtain a Punitive Damages Verdict that Was Reversed on Appeal

Buell-Wilson Cert. Petition Featured on SCOTUSblog's "Petitions to Watch"

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:18:00 +0000

SCOTUSblog has identified the cert. petition in Buell-Wilson as one of the "petitions to watch" for the Supreme Court's upcoming conference on November 24. The SCOTUSblog post includes links to the opinion and the petition-stage briefing.

$5 Million Punitive Damages Award in Beef Jerky Dispute

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:54:00 +0000

Punitive damages arise in some strange contexts. In this opinion, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reinstated a $5 million punitive damages award in a father-son feud over control of a beef jerky empire.

The trial court had reduced the award to $736,000, but the appellate court determined that the trial court had no power to order the reduction because the defendant filed his posttrial motion one day late. Oops.

Hat tip: Beef Jerky Blog ("The Undisputed King of Beef Jerky!")

Gunderson v. Wall: Inconsistencies in Defendant'sTestimony Are Not Alone Sufficient to Support Punitive Damages

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:03:00 +0000

This unpublished opinion shoots down an argument that arises fairly often in punitive damages appeals. When the issue on appeal is whether the plaintiff failed to prove malice by clear and convincing evidence, plaintiffs sometimes argue that the defendant's testimony contained inconsistencies, which shows the defendant was lying, which in turn proves that the defendant was acting with an evil motive, i.e., malice.

The Second Appellate District, Division Seven, rejected that sort of argument here. It ruled that inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony were not a substitute for clear and convincing proof of malice:

In this case, the issue is whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Wall knew or should have known that Welded was receiving stolen funds. As previously discussed, the inconsistencies in Wall's trial testimony reasonably could support a finding by the jury that Wall was not a credible witness and that he thus had failed to prove his affirmative defense of good faith. But none of the inconsistencies supported the inference that, at the time Welded received the two transfers from Gruys, Wall knew or had reason to know that Gruys had stolen those funds from someone else. Unlike the good faith defense for which Wall and Welded had the burden of proof, the burden rested on Gunderson to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Wall and Welded (as opposed to Gruys) were guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. However, absent any evidence that Wall and Welded had actual or constructive knowledge that the transferred funds did not belong to Gruys, Gunderson could not satisfy his burden of proving that Wall and Welded acted with an intent to cause Gunderson injury or engaged in despicable conduct in a conscious disregard of his rights.

Accordingly, the court reversed an $800,000 punitive damages award. (The court also reversed a $2.4 million punitive damages award against another defendant, after concluding that the award resulted from an improper discovery sanction.)

There may be some situations in which inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony do in fact support an inference of malice, because the inconsistencies rule out any possible explanation for the defendant's conduct other than malice. But that will not always be the case, as this opinion illustrates.

Punitive Damages Against Drug Manufacturers

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:26:00 +0000

Drug and Device Law has a lengthy post arguing that punitive damages should be unavailable in most product liability lawsuits against prescription drug manufacturers. The post collects authorities from various jurisdictions for the proposition that punitive damages are inappropriate when the defendant's conduct complied with applicable regulations or industry standards. We touched on this issue a few months ago, in a post about a decision from the Montana Supreme Court.

Jackson v. Yarbray: Defendants Can Be Jointly and Severally Liable for Punitive Damages

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:45:00 +0000

To my knowledge, this opinion is the first published opinion in California to uphold joint and several liability for punitive damages. If anyone knows about another one, I would love to hear about it.

The trial court entered a judgment holding five different defendants jointly liable for $700,000 in compensatory damages and $2.41 million punitive damages. Only one of the defendants challenged the punitive damages award on appeal. He argued, among other things, that the trial court lacked authority to impose joint and several liability against all defendants for the total punitive damages award, and should have assessed punitive damages separately against each defendant.

The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) rejected that argument: "[W]hen the theory of liability is that the defendants acted jointly in tortiously pursuing a course of conduct, imposing joint and several liability for punitive damages is not prohibitied." The court acknowledged that in most cases, punitive damages are assessed separately, even against joint tortfeasors. Indeed, the California Supreme Court expressly stated in Thomson v. Catalina (1928) 205 Cal. 402 that it was proper for a trial court to instruct a jury to award punitive damages in different amounts against different defendants.

The Court of Appeal here did not cite a single case in California (or anywhere else) allowing punitive damages to be assessed jointly and severally. Nevertheless, the court concluded that "punitive damages do not have to be apportioned when the finder of fact determines that the defendants acted jointly to commit a single wrong and each acted with essentially the same degree of culpability."

This case appears to be inconsistent not only with California practice, but with the approach taken by other jurisdictions nationwide. (See McFadden v. Sanchez (2d Cir. 1983) 710 F.2d 907, 913 [“In modern times American jurisdictions have come to the conclusion that punitive damages should be assessed on an individual basis’”].) That practice makes sense to me; a defendant should be required to pay punitive damages only for its own acts of malice, and should not be jointly liable for the malice of others.

UPDATE: Although this opinion is certified for publication, the punitive damages analysis appears in an unpublished portion of the opinion. Thanks to Kevin Underhill for pointing that out. (For those who don't know, Kevin writes Lowering the Bar. I used to think legal humor was an oxymoron, until I started reading Kevin's blog. This post is one of my all-time favorites.)

FURTHER UPDATE: This post at Cal Biz Lit discuses this case and the concept of joint and several liability for punitive damages.

DOJ Issues Latest Report on State Tort Litigation, Including Punitive Damages Awards

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:59:00 +0000

The Department of Justice has issued a statistical report entitled "Tort Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005." Last year the DOJ issued a similar study covering all state court trials (see this post), but this one is limited to tort trials.

There's lots of good stuff in the report, but for our purposes the highlights are:

- Punitive damages were sought in 9% of tort trials in which the plaintiff prevailed.

- Punitive damages were awarded in 254 of the 8,763 tort trials in which the plaintiff prevailed (3%).

- The median punitive damage award was $55,000.

- Twenty-three percent of punitive awards were more than $250,000 and 17% were $1 million or more.

- The median punitive damage awards in tort jury ($100,000) and bench ($54,000) trials were not statistically different.

- Overall, economic and non-economic damages constituted about 90% of the total monetary awards to plaintiff winners, while punitive damages accounted for nearly 10% of the total awards.

Hat tip: Torts Prof Blog.

Oregon Court of Appeals Reverses $7 Million Punitive Damages Award, Splits on the Appropriate Remedy

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:32:00 +0000

The Oregon courts are once again making news in punitive damages litigation. Last week, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued this opinion in Wieber v. Fed Ex, reversing a $7 million punitive damages award as excessive. The reversal is noteworthy, since Oregon courts rarely overturn punitive damages awards on excessiveness grounds. But even more noteworthy is the court's internal disagreement about how to remedy the excessiveness problem.

The plaintiff in Wieber, who had a delivery route with Fed Ex, argued that Fed Ex fraudulently terminated his contract without notice. The jury awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages for fraud and intentional interference with economic relations, plus $7 million in compensatory damages.

On appeal, Fed Ex challenged the liability findings and the amount of punitive damages. On liability, the court concluded Fed Ex was entitled to judgment on the claim for intentional interference with economic relations, but ruled that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support the fraud verdict. Having upheld the liability findings, the court addressed Fed Ex's argument that the punitive damages were excessive. The court concluded that Fed Ex's conduct was very low on the reprehensibility scale, and therefore any award of punitive damages in excess of three times the amount of compensatory damages would violate due process.

Here's where it gets a little interesting. The court ordered a new trial, but gave the plaintiff the option of accepting the constitutional maximum award (roughly $1 million) and foregoing a new trial. A dissenting justice argued that the plaintiff should not be permitted to choose a remittitur, and that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. The dissented pointed out that the jury, while considering punitive damages, was improperly directed to award punishment for both intentional interference and for fraud.

The dissent seems to have the better argument. Ordinarily, when an appellate reverses a punitive damages award solely on the ground that the award is unconstitutionally excessive, the court has the power to reduce the award to the maximum award that would be permitted under the constitution. (See Johansen v. Combustion Engineering (11th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 1320, 1332, fn. 19; see also Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1159, 1187-1188 [following Johansen].) In a such a situation, the court need not give the plaintiff the option of a new trial, because the plaintiff could not possibly achieve a better result on retrial; by definition, the constitutional maximum award is the ceiling on the plaintiff's recovery.

But the analysis should be very different when a court reverses an award not just for excessiveness, but for a trial error, like an evidentiary error or an instructional error. In such cases, the defendant is entitled to a new trial so that a properly instructed jury can decide the appropriate amount of punitive damages based on proper evidence. It is unfair for an appellate court to simply order the defendant to pay the maximum constitutional award, because the jury in a properly conducted trial might have chosen to award a lesser amount.

Oregon Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Another Tobacco Case with Huge Punitive Award

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:36:00 +0000

Oregon has been a major battleground in punitive damages litigation in recent years, a trend that shows no signs of letting up. As we noted last week, the Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to decide a certified question from the Ninth Circuit regarding the application of Oregon's split-recovery statute. Before the Oregon Supreme Court gets to that issue, however, it will decide Schwarz v. Philip Morris, described in this Statesman Journal article: State high court ponders award in cigarette lawsuit.

As the article reports, the jury in Schwarz awarded $150 million in punitive damages and $169,000 in compensatory damages. The trial court reduced the punitive damages to $100 million. The Court of Appeal reversed the punitive damages award in its entirety, ordering a new trial because the trial court had improperly refused Philip Morris's request to instruct the jury not to punish for harm to nonparties.

It will be interesting to see what the Oregon Supreme Court does with Schwarz. Remember, this is the same court that refused to order a new trial in Philip Morris v. Williams even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the jury instructions in that case were inadequate to protect the defendant's due process rights.

A Mixed Bag For Pfizer On Prempro Punitive Damages

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:53:00 +0000

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That adage is illustrated by these two reports which appear today on Bloomberg.com:

Pfizer Doesn't Have to Pay $27 Million Prempro [Punitive Damages] Award

Pfizer Jury Said to Award $75 Million Prempro [Punitive Damages] Verdict

The former report refers to a $27 million punitive damages award rendered last year by a jury in federal district court in Arkansas. The district court vacated the award because the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of malice to support punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit disagreed (see opinion). Although the Eighth Circuit concluded the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a punitive damages award, the court ordered a new trial on the issue of punitive damages because the jury was allowed to consider improper expert testimony. (Note: the actual defendants in this case were Upjohn and Wyeth, but they have both been acquired by Pfizer.)

The latter report refers to a punitive damage award that a Philadelphia jury returned last week. The trial court ordered the amount of the punitive damages award sealed. It took about a week for someone to leak the amount to the media.

Related posts:

Jury Awards Undisclosed Amount of Punitive Damages Against Pfizer in Prempro Litigation

Arkansas District Court Vacates $27 Million Punitive Damages Award Against Wyeth and UpJohn

Count Dracula Wants Punitive Damages

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:46:00 +0000

Apropos of the season, fake news service CarbolicSmokeBall has this story: "Dracula Files Products Liability Suit Against Wooden Stake Manufacturers."

Kausch v. Wimsatt: Attorney Not Liable for Punitive Damages in Dispute with Client

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:31:00 +0000

Things have been quiet lately in the California punitive damages arena. The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three), issued this unpublished opinion yesterday, but it's not particularly noteworthy. The plaintiff was involved in a personal injury lawsuit and he sued his lawyer, claiming (among other things) the lawyer improperly deducted certain expenses from a settlement check. The trial court granted summary adjudication on punitive damages, finding no triable issue of fact on the question of malice. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Judge Weighing Punitive Damages for Failure to Warn of Dangers of Baseball Bat

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:47:00 +0000

Is this really a punitive damages case? As reported by the Associated Press, a judge in Montana is deciding whether to impose punitive damages on a manufacturer of aluminum baseball bats. A jury has already found the defendant liable for failure to warn and awarded $850,000 in compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs' son was struck and killed by a baseball while playing in a baseball game. The article does not explain what warnings the plaintiffs contend should have been given, or how those warnings would have prevented the tragic death of the plaintiffs' son. Obviously I haven't heard the evidence presented to the jury, but I am skeptical that there could be any proof of malice here.

Jury Awards Undisclosed Amount of Punitive Damages Against Pfizer in Prempro Litigation

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:29:00 +0000

As reported by Bloomberg and the Associated Press (via the Seattle Times), a Philadelphia jury has awarded an undisclosed amount of punitive damages against Pfizer in litigation over its hormone replacement drug, Prempro. The judge has sealed the amount of the punitive damages award because another trial involving Prempro is pending in the same courthouse. Other lawsuits involving Prempro have resulted in some very large punitive awards.

An order sealing a punitive damages award is rare, but not unheard of. Last year a Los Angeles judge sealed the $50 million award against iPayment CEO Greg Daily. An anonymous source leaked the amount to the press immediately after the award was rendered. The court later ordered the award unsealed. (Full disclosure: Horvitz & Levy is now representing Mr. Daily in his effort to overturn that award.)

Oregon Supreme Court Accepts Certified Question on Split-Recovery Statute

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:50:00 +0000

In a previous post we reported that the Ninth Circuit had certified the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court:

When a jury has returned a verdict that includes an award of punitive damages
under Oregon law, is the State of Oregon’s consent necessary before a court may
enter a judgment giving effect to any settlement between the parties that would
result in a reduction or elimination of the punitive damages to which the State
would otherwise be entitled under Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.735?

As expected, the Oregon Supreme Court has accepted the question.

Federal Judge Allows Plaintiffs to Seek Punitive Damages in Class Action Against Allianz

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:13:00 +0000

As reported by Courthouse News Service, a federal judge in San Diego has ruled that a class of senior citizens can seek punitive damages against Allianz Life Insurance. The plaintiffs contend Allianz used deceptive sales tactics to sell derivative investments at senior centers.

We'll be keeping an eye on this case. The availability of punitive damages in a class action is a hot issue, as some academics and bloggers have argued that awarding punitive damages via class action is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions on punitive damages. The availability of punitive damages by class action is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.

For more discussion of this order, see this post at Bailey Class Action Daily.

Federal Judge Awards $300 Million In Punitive Damages Against Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:03:00 +0000

As reported by Bloomberg, a federal district judge in Washington D.C. has awarded $310 million, including $300 million in punitive damages, to a victim of the 1984 embassy bombing in Lebanon. The judge determined that Iran was liable because it funded the Hezbollah terrorists who launched the attack.

The sheer size of this award and the 30-to-1 ratio would seem to raise some constitutional questions, but those questions will never be litigated because Iran is not defending itself. The Bloomberg story reports that U.S. courts have awarded $3.5 billion against Iran in the last few years. Iran has not contested any of the suits or paid any of the judgments. Like the $393 million judgment against Cuba earlier this year, this award is purely symbolic.

Although I have no sympathy for these particular defendants, I wonder whether these "funny money" awards are contributing to a culture that views 9-digit punitive damages awards as an accepted part of our legal system.

No Punitive Damages in NYC Suit Against Exxon Mobil

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:39:00 +0000

As reported by Bloomberg, a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan has ruled that New York City has not produced sufficient evidence to proceed with a claim for punitive damages in its lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. for allegedly poisoning city wells with MTBE, a gasoline additive.

The City is seeking $250 million in compensatory damages. It probably would have asked for that much or more in punitive damages if the court had permitted it to do so. We'll apparently never know, because the city's lawyers are not commenting on the ruling.

Fariba v. Dealer Services: No Punitive Damages Where Liability Depends on Issue of First Impression

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:37:00 +0000

Here's a case defendants can cite whenever a plaintiff seeks punitive damages in a case involving a novel legal theory.

In this published opinion, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) affirmed a judgment that raised a liability issue of first impression in California.

(It has nothing to do with the topic of this blog, but in case you're curious, the issue of first impression was: Where a secured creditor of a business has actual knowledge that the business is substantially engaged in consignment sales, are the rights of the consignor superior to the secured creditor? Answer: yes.)

Although the Court of Appeal affirmed the award of compensatory damages based on this previously unresolved issue, the court also affirmed an order granting a directed verdict on the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Among other things, the court concluded that the plaintiff could not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights when the scope of the plaintiff's rights turned on an unsettled legal issue.

CBO Projects Savings from Capping Punitive Damages for Medical Malpractice

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:25:00 +0000

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a package of medical malpractice reforms, including a $500,000 cap on punitive damages, would save $54 billion, as reported here in the Washington Post. On the other hand, USA Today reports that the CBO projects a savings of $11 billion.

I'm not sure why the two stories give different numbers, as they seem to be reporting on the same CBO projections. [UPDATE: The $54 billion figure is the CBO's estimated savings over 10 years, and the $11 billion figure is a one-year projection.] In any event, I am skeptical that a cap on punitive damages would generate any huge savings by itself, because punitive damages awards seem to be quite rare in medical malpractice actions.

Ford Files Cert. Petition in Buell-Wilson

noreply@blogger.com (Curt Cutting) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:26:00 +0000

Ford has filed a petition for certiorari in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., a case with a long procedural history that has already included one stop at the U.S. Supreme Court. (See the long list of related posts below.)

Ford's petition asks the court to clarify the standard for resolving a claim that a state punitive damages statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of a particular case. Specifically, Ford argues that California's punitive damages statute (Civil Code section 3294) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to cases involving manufacturers whose products comply with applicable regulatory standards and industry customs.

Ford's approach is a bold one. The Supreme Court has never addressed an as-applied vagueness challenge to a punitive damages statute, as far as I know. But there's a first time for everything. If Ford can get cert. in this case, it could be the same kind of game-changing event as BMW v. Gore.

Related posts:

California Supreme Court Denies Request to Re-Publish Buell-Wilson

The Largest Punitive Damages Award to Survive Appeal in California?

Cal. Supreme Court Dismisses Review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford

Plaintiff Asks California Supreme Court to Dismiss Review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford

Buell-Wilson v. Ford: Two of the Three Issues Raised in the Petition are Not Dependent on the United States Supreme Court's Opinion in Williams III

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford

Court of Appeal May Have Been Too Quick on the Trigger in Buell-Wilson Post-Opinion Order

Court of Appeal Denies Petition for Rehearing in Buell-Wilson v. Ford

Buell-Wilson v. Ford—Court of Appeal Says Ford Waived Due Process Protections Against Excessive Punitive Damages