Constitutional Limitations on Punitive Damages: Ambiguous Effects and Inconsistent Justifications

By McMichael, Benjamin J. | Vanderbilt Law Review, April 2013 | Go to article overview

Constitutional Limitations on Punitive Damages: Ambiguous Effects and Inconsistent Justifications


McMichael, Benjamin J., Vanderbilt Law Review


(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)

I. INTRODUCTION

Punitive damages occupy a special place in the U.S. legal system. Courts award them in very few cases, yet they have been the center of tort reform efforts because of their controversial nature.1 This controversy centers around the purposes for which punitive damages are awarded-to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter future bad acts.2 While compensatory damages exist to redress specific harms and to compensate a victim for a particular harm suffered, punitive damages exist to further the much broader social goals of retribution and deterrence.3

Because punitive damages must be calibrated to achieve these broad social goals, they necessarily involve more discretion on the part of the adjudicator awarding them. Adjudicators may receive some guidance when setting the final award amount, but this guidance is often minimal when provided at all.4 The broad discretion exercised by adjudicators combined with a lack of guidance has created a system with the potential to impose very large and unpredictable punitive damages awards on defendants.5 While punitive damages can efficiently deter defendants when compensatory damages are not large enough to induce defendants to take the appropriate amount of caution in their activities,6 large and unpredictable awards tend to have a chilling effect on desirable activities. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that punitive damages do not actually provide strong incentives for defendants to take extra precautions in their activities and that they can even systematically harm consumers.7

Because of the potential for very large and unpredictable awards, both legislatures and courts have taken action to limit punitive damages awards.8 Recently, the Supreme Court has invoked the Due Process Clause to place constraints on punitive damages and "grossly excessive awards."9 The Court began by limiting the discretion of judges and juries to award punitive damages, and the Court's restrictions culminated in essentially placing a cap on the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages that could be awarded in a given case.10

Currently, the Court's doctrine on punitive damages is somewhat nebulous. While it has articulated what goals punitive damages may accomplish-punishment and deterrence-it has provided no guidance on how states may accomplish those goals.11 Additionally, while it has announced some general limitations on awards through a vague reasonableness inquiry, the only specific limitation has proven both arbitrary and ineffective. This Note demonstrates that the current limitations on punitive damages are inconsistent with the stated goals of these damages and have an inconsistent effect across the full range of punitive damages awards.

More specifically, this Note addresses punitive damages in two contexts. First, it provides a thorough empirical evaluation of the current doctrine, focusing on the virtual cap imposed by the Court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell to determine what effects that cap has had on punitive damages awards. This Note builds on and extends previous empirical research regarding punitive damages and demonstrates that even though the cap should have decreased award amounts, it has not had that effect. In fact, some evidence suggests that awards may have actually increased after the Court imposed the cap. Second, this Note discusses how the lack of the intended effect combined with other fundamental flaws in the reasoning underlying the current limitations on punitive damages indicates the need for a new doctrine.

The new doctrine proposed here replaces the current punitive damages framework with a simplified version that requires individual courts to match punitive awards to civil fines or penalties authorized by state legislatures in similar cases. This new framework eliminates both the vague reasonableness inquiry and the ratio cap from the current doctrine. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Constitutional Limitations on Punitive Damages: Ambiguous Effects and Inconsistent Justifications
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.