Download or read book The Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards written by W. Kip Viscusi and published by . This book was released on 2004 with total page 50 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: A listing and analysis of punitive damage awards of one hundred million dollars or more in the U.S., 1985-2003.
Download or read book The Changing Landscape of Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards written by Alison F. DelRossi and published by . This book was released on 2009 with total page 62 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This article investigates the determinants of the blockbuster punitive damages awards of at least $100 million. As of the end of 2008, there had been 100 such awards with an average value of $3.0 billion. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in State Farm v. Campbell suggested a single digit upper bound on the punitive damages/compensatory damages ratio, which reduced the annual number of blockbuster awards, the total annual value of blockbuster awards, and the punitive damages/compensatory damages ratio. Applying the 1:1 ratio from Exxon Shipping Co. et al. v. Baker et al. broadly would eliminate most of the blockbuster awards.
Download or read book The Blockbuster Punitive Damage Awards written by and published by . This book was released on 2004 with total page 45 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:
Download or read book Shifting the Fat Tailed Distribution of Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards written by W. Kip Viscusi and published by . This book was released on 2013 with total page 43 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: The distribution of blockbuster punitive damages awards has fat tails similar to the distributions of losses from natural disasters. Extremely large awards occur more often and are more difficult to predict than if blockbuster awards were distributed normally. The size and predictability of awards are important factors in the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on punitive damages. This article examines the effect of the Court's decision in State Farm v. Campbell on blockbuster punitive damages awards. State Farm shifts the fat tail of the distribution of blockbuster awards down (or “thins” the tail), which is consistent with a restraining effect on award size. State Farm reduces the size of blockbuster awards in general, but this reduction is most salient in the upper half of the distribution of awards. State Farm also has a negative influence on the probability of exceeding a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. This article also examines the largest awards and considers why defendants may not pay large punitive damages awards.
Download or read book Taming Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards written by Benjamin J. McMichael and published by . This book was released on 2018 with total page 50 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:
Download or read book The Significant Association Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages in Blockbuster Cases written by Martin T. Wells and published by . This book was released on 2007 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This article assesses the relation between punitive and compensatory damages in a data set, gathered by Hersch and Viscusi (H-V), consisting of all known punitive damages awards in excess of $100 million from 1985 through 2003. It shows that a strong, statistically significant relation exists between punitive and compensatory awards, a relation that replicates similar findings in nearly all other analyses of punitive and compensatory damages. H-V's claim that no significant relation exists between punitive and compensatory awards in these data appears to be an artifact of questionable regression methodology.
Download or read book Punitive Damages written by Cass R. Sunstein and published by University of Chicago Press. This book was released on 2008-12-19 with total page 299 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the number and magnitude of punitive damages verdicts rendered by juries in civil trials. Probably the most extraordinary example is the July 2000 award of $144.8 billion in the Florida class action lawsuit brought against cigarette manufacturers. Or consider two recent verdicts against the auto manufacturer BMW in Alabama. In identical cases, argued in the same court before the same judge, one jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, while the other awarded no punitive damages at all. In cases involving accidents, civil rights, and the environment, multimillion-dollar punitive awards have been a subject of intense controversy. But how do juries actually make decisions about punitive damages? To find out, the authors-experts in psychology, economics, and the law-present the results of controlled experiments with more than 600 mock juries involving the responses of more than 8,000 jury-eligible citizens. Although juries tended to agree in their moral judgments about the defendant's conduct, they rendered erratic and unpredictable dollar awards. The experiments also showed that instead of moderating juror verdicts, the process of jury deliberation produced a striking "severity shift" toward ever-higher awards. Jurors also tended to ignore instructions from the judges; were influenced by whatever amount the plaintiff happened to request; showed "hindsight bias," believing that what happened should have been foreseen; and penalized corporations that had based their decisions on careful cost-benefit analyses. While judges made many of the same errors, they performed better in some areas, suggesting that judges (or other specialists) may be better equipped than juries to decide punitive damages. Using a wealth of new experimental data, and offering a host of provocative findings, this book documents a wide range of systematic biases in jury behavior. It will be indispensable for anyone interested not only in punitive damages, but also jury behavior, psychology, and how people think about punishment.
Download or read book The Punitive Damages Calculus written by Benjamin J. McMichael and published by . This book was released on 2016 with total page 42 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: State punitive damages reforms have altered how courts award punitive damages. We model the decision to award punitive damages as a two-step process involving the decision to award any punitive damages and the decision of what amount to award. For the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts samples of trial court verdicts, punitive damages caps reduce the amount of damages awarded but do not affect whether they are initially awarded. In contrast, the effect of punitive damages reforms on blockbuster punitive damages awards of at least $100 million is to reduce the incidence of these awards, but not their amount.
Download or read book Punitive Damages written by American Bar Association. Special Committee on Punitive Damages and published by . This book was released on 1986 with total page 116 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:
Download or read book Successfully Challenging Punitive Damage Awards written by Theodore J. Boutrous and published by . This book was released on 2003 with total page 56 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:
Download or read book Demystifying Punitive Damages in Products Liability Cases written by Michael Rustad and published by . This book was released on 1991 with total page 80 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:
Download or read book Punitive Damages in Financial Injury Jury Verdicts written by Erik Moller and published by RAND Corporation. This book was released on 1997 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This report provides the technical details of an Institute for Civil Justice analysis of trends and patterns in punitive damage awards in financial injury cases in selected jurisdictions during the period 1985 through 1994. The jurisdictions include all state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the states of California and New York; Cook County, Illinois (Chicago); the St. Louis, Missouri, metropolitan area; and Harris County, Texas (Houston). These data are supplemented by information obtained from the Administrative Office of the Alabama Courts for verdicts reached in that state's trial courts of general jurisdiction during the period 1992 to 1997. The study also estimates what percentage of the financial injury punitive awards in the database would have been affected by caps of various sizes and how the caps would have affected the total amount of punitive damages awarded in such cases.
Download or read book Constitutional Limits on Punitive Damages Awards written by and published by . This book was released on 2007 with total page 20 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Courts sometimes award punitive (or exemplary) damages in addition to compensatory damages. Compensatory damages redress the "loss the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct." Punitive damages serve the dual purposes of deterrence and retribution, and are viewed as "quasi-criminal" and as "private fines"; the Supreme Court has defined their imposition as "an expression of [the jury's] moral condemnation." In a 5-4 decision on February 20, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, a case in which the Oregon Supreme Court held that a punitive damages award of $79.5 million did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari to consider "[w]hether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analogous to a crime can 'override' the constitutional requirement that punitive damages be reasonably related to the plaintiff's harm." The Court had further agreed to consider "[w]hether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties." Holding that the Due Process Clause does not allow a jury to base the amount of a punitive damage award on the jury's "desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are not before the court," the Court then declined to examine whether the $79.5 million award was "grossly excessive." This report summarizes decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in relevant punitive damages cases, discusses lower court rulings in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, analyzes arguments in the appeal of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, examines factors the Court considered in its decision, and elucidates concerns for the future.
Download or read book Procedural Due Process and Predictable Punitive Damage Awards written by Jill Wieber Lens and published by . This book was released on 2014 with total page 67 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the Supreme Court's most recent opinion on punitive damage awards, the Court declared that the real problem with punitive damage awards is their “stark unpredictability.” The Court abandoned all hope that common law jury instructions could produce predictable punitive damage awards. Instead, the Court suggested pegging punitive damage awards to compensatory damage awards. So far, analysis of the opinion has been minimal, likely due to the purported maritime law basis of the holding.Exxon should not be overlooked, however, as it signals a resurgence of procedural due process as a basis for challenging punitive damage awards -- a type of challenge the Court has not heard since the early 1990s. Predictability of the amount is no different than fair notice of the likely severity of an award, which procedural due process requires. If common law jury instructions cannot produce predictable punitive damage awards, they also cannot produce awards consistent with the notice procedural due process requires. The Court's Exxon pegging solution will not produce predictable awards (and ones that comply with procedural due process) because it relies on compensatory damages, which are inherently unpredictable. As an alternative, this Article suggests looking to restitution, a non-controversial punitive, civil remedy. Basing punitive damages on the defendant's gain would produce predictable awards--as procedural due process requires.
Download or read book Punitive Damages Law and Practice written by James D. Ghiardi and published by . This book was released on 1981 with total page 1078 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt:
Download or read book Punitive Damages in Financial Injury Jury Verdicts written by Erik Moller and published by RAND Corporation. This book was released on 1997 with total page 0 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This report provides the techincal details of an Institute for Civil Justice analysis of trends and patterns in punitive damage awards in financial injury cases in selected jurisdictions during the period 1985-1994.
Download or read book Punitive Damages written by Mark A. Peterson and published by Rand Corporation. This book was released on 1987-01-01 with total page 68 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Based on cases that reached jury verdict in Cook County, Illinois, and San Francisco, California, from 1960 to 1984, this report presents analytically derived answers to questions surrounding the award of punitive damages: (1) how frequently punitive damages are awarded in civil suits, (2) what types of cases and defendants are most subject to such awards, and (3) what proportion of the monies awarded in punitive damages is actually paid out. The findings confirm trends for which there had only been anecdotal evidence: The incidence of punitive damage awards (measured by proportion of cases in which such awards are made) and the amount of money (measured in constant 1984 dollars) awarded for punitive purposes have increased substantially over the years. Corporate defendants are in fact more likely than individuals or public agencies to be the target of such awards. Many damage awards are significantly reduced and only about half of the dollars awarded are ultimately paid subsequent to award at the trial court level.
