The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in BMW v. Gore (1996) in May. This decision triggered another round of discussions regarding restraints on punitive damages as a part of the overall reform of the U.S. tort system. Here, the authors review the BMW decision and its immediate predecessors to illustrate the essential public policy issues that are associated with proposed limits on punitive damages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamKenneth S., and JeffriesJohn C.Jr. (1989), “Punitive Damages and the Rule of Law: The Role of the Defendant's Wealth,”Journal of Legal Studies, 18 (June), 415–26.
2.
Alcorn v. Mitchell (1872), 63 111. 553.
3.
AllenRichard (1987), “Controlling the Growth of Punitive Damages in Products Liability,”Corporate Practice Commentator, 29 (Fall), 389–412.
4.
AllikerE. Benjamin (1995), “Punitive Damage Awards After Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg: Analyzing the Triumverate of History, Due Process and the Jury,”Maryland Journal of Contemporary Issues, 6, 377–404.
5.
ALR 4th (1996), “Annotation: Allowance of Punitive Damages in Products Liability Cases,”Annotated Law Reports 4th, Vol. 13. New York: Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 52–125.
6.
Barry v. Edmunds (1886), 116 U.S. 550, 6 S.Ct. 501.
7.
Benson v. Frederick (1766), 97 Eng. Rep. 1130 (K.B.).
8.
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Ira Gore (1996), 116 S.Ct. 1589; 646 So.2d 619 (Ala. 1994).
9.
BoutrousTheodore J.Jr. (1996), “The Case of the $2 Million Paint Job,”The American Lawyer, (May), 36+.
10.
BresloJames A. (1992), “Taking the Punitive Damage Windfall Away from the Plaintiff: An Analysis,”Northwestern University Law Review, 86 (Summer), 1130–68.
11.
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), 492 U.S. 257, 109 S.Ct. 2909; cert. granted, 109 S.Ct. 527 (1988); 845 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1988).
12.
Business Week (1989), “Punitive Damages: How Much Is Too Much?” (March 27), 54, 56.
13.
ButlerSamuel C. (1996), “Some Thoughts on Civil Justice Reform,”Fordham Law Review, 64 (April), 2149–53.
14.
Comment (1996), “Discovery of Net Worth in Bifurcated Punitive Damages Cases: A Suggested Approach after Transportation Insurance v. Moriel,”South Texas Law Review, 37 (January), 193–229.
15.
Coreyell v. Colbaugh (1791), 1 N.J.L. 77.
16.
CutterDavid F. (1995), “TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.: A Failure to Create True Constitutional Protection Against Excessive Punitive Damages,”Catholic University Law Review, 42 (Winter), 631–74.
17.
DanielsStephen, and MartinJoanne (1990), “Myth and Reality in Punitive Damages,”Minnesota Law Review, 75 (October), 1–64.
18.
Day v. Woodworth (1851), 54 U.S. 363.
19.
DiveleyE. Marie Tucker (1995), “Are Constitutional Challenges to Punitive Damages Still Available?”Defense Counsel Journal, 62 (January), 27–32.
20.
DragutskyNancy G. (1994), “Walking the Invisible Line of Punitive Damages: TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.,”Pepperdine Law Review, 21 (April), 909–74.
21.
Drug Topics (1996), “More Contraceptive Options Needed, Says Medical Panel,”140 (June 10).
22.
Duberley v. Gunning (1792), 100 Eng. Rep. 1226 (K.B.).
23.
DuffyJames EJr. (1969), “Punitive Damages: A Doctrine Which Should be Abolished,” in The Case Against Punitive Damages: Practice and Procedures, Vol. 4, HirschDonald J., and PourosJames G., eds. Chicago: Defense Research Institute, 14–38.
24.
DuncanLaura (1995), “Painful Decisions: New Business Risks Await Both Plaintiff and Defense Lawyers,”ABA Journal, 81 (August), 66+.
25.
Forward (1993), “Symposium on Civil Justice Reform,”American University Law Review, 42 (Summer), 1245–55.
26.
Funk v. Kerbaugh (1908), 70 Atl. 953.
27.
GalanterMarc (1992), “Pick a Number, Any Number,”Legal Times, (February 17), 26+.
28.
General Accounting Office (1989), Product Liability, Verdicts and Case Resolution in Five States, GAO/HRD-89-99, United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives (September).
29.
Genay v. Norris (1784), 1 S.C.L. (1 Bay) 6.
30.
GordonStacy Adler (1992), “Punitive Damage Problem Is Exaggerated,”Business Insurance, (January 13), 1–2.
31.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 895, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697.
32.
Hawkins v. Sciet (1622), 81 Eng. Rep. 1099 (K.B.).
33.
Home Office Computing (1996), “We Dispute,” (July), 28+.
34.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Oberg (1994), 114 S.Ct. 2331; 108 Ore. App. 43, 814 P.2d 517 (1991).
35.
Huckle v. Money (1763), 95 Eng. Rep. 768.
36.
HurdSandra N., and ZollersFrances E. (1994), “State Punitive Damages Statutes: A Proposed Alternative,”Journal of Legislation, 20, 191–205.
37.
The Jerusalem Bible (1971). Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
KirgisPaul F. (1993), “The Constitutionality of State Allocation of Punitive Damage Awards,”Washington & Lee Law Review, 50, 843–74.
40.
LandesWilliam M., and PosnerRichard R. (1986), “New Light on Punitive Damages,”Regulation, (October), 33+.
41.
Leith v. Pope (1780), 96 Eng. Rep. 777 (C.P.).
42.
Lexis (1996), LEXIS-NEXIS User's Guide for Educational Programs.Dayton, OH: Mead Data Central.
43.
LivingstonJ.C. (1990), “Browning-Ferris v. Kelco: The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment Provides No Federal Standard to Limit Punitive Damages,”Tulane Law Review, 64 (May), 1271–80.
44.
MacarioMatthew J. (1995), “Punitive Damage Awards and Procedural Due Process in Products Liability Cases—Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 114 S.Ct. 2331 (1994),”Temple Law Review, 68 (1995), 409–62.
45.
MacchiarolaFrank J. (1996), “The Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust: Lessons for the Future,”Cardozo Law Review, 17 (January), 583–627.
46.
MacLachlanClaudia (1997), “BMW Triggers Cuts in Punies,”National Law Journal, 19 (January 20), 1, 17.
47.
MasseyJonathan S. (1995), “Why Tradition Supports Punitive Damages and How the Defense Bar Misreads History,”Trial, 31 (September), 7+.
48.
McKownJames R. (1995), “Punitive Damages: State Trends and Developments,”The Review of Litigation, 14 (Spring), 419–63.
49.
Merest v. Harvey (1814), 128 Eng. Rep. 761 (C.P.).
50.
MorganFred W. (1989), “The Evolution of Punitive Damages in Product Liability for Unprincipled Marketing Behavior,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 8, 279–93.
51.
Note (1957), “Exemplary Damages in the Law of Torts,”Harvard Law Review, 70, 517–40.
52.
Oberg v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (1996), 116 S.Ct. 1847, cert. denied; 320 Ore. 544 (1995).
53.
OwenDavid G. (1976), “Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation,”Michigan Law Review, 74 (June), 1258–371.
54.
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip (1991), 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032.
PartlettDavid F. (1996), “Punitive Damages: Legal Hot Zone,”Louisiana Law Review, 56 (Summer), 781–824.
57.
PetersonMark A. (1987), Civil Juries in the 1980s: Trends in Jury Trials and Verdicts in California and Cook County, Illinois: Report R-3466-ICJ.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
58.
PetersonMark A., SarmaSuam, and ShanleyMichael G. (1987), Punitive Damages: Empirical Findings: Report R-3311-ICJ.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
59.
Restatement (Second) of Torts (1979), American Law Institute.
60.
RichardsR. McKennaJr. (1992), “Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip: Punitive Damages and the Modern Meaning of Procedural Due Process,”North Carolina Law Review, 70 (April), 1362–88.
61.
Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967), 378 F.2d 832 (2d Cir.).
62.
RustadMichael (1992), “In Defense of Punitive Damages in Products Liability: Testing Tort Anecdotes with Empirical Data,”Iowa Law Review, 78 (October), 1–88.
63.
RustadMichael, and KoenigThomas (1993), “The Historical Continuity of Punitive Damages Awards: Reforming the Tort Reformers,”American University Law Review, 42 (Summer), 1269–333.
64.
SaksMichael J. (1992), “Do We Know Anything about the Behavior of the Tort Litigation System—and Why Not?”University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140 (April), 1147–292.
65.
SchwartzAlan (1988), “Proposals for Products Liability Reform: A Theoretical Synthesis,”Yale Law Journal, 97 (February), 353–419.
66.
SchwartzVictor E., and BehrensMark A. (1993), “Punitive Damages Reform—States Legislatures Can and Should Meet the Challenge Issued by the Supreme Court in Haslip,” American University Law Review, 42 (Summer), 1365–1390.
67.
SchwartzVictor E., and BehrensMark A. (1996), “Federal Product Liability Reform Legislation is Consistent with Virginia Law and Should Be Strongly Supported,”George Mason University Law Review, 4 (Winter), 279–96.
68.
SneidermanSteven N. (1990), “The Future of Punitive Damages After Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal,”Ohio State Law Journal, 51 (Fall), 1031–47.
69.
SperowElizabeth H. (1994), “TXO Production Corporation v. Alliance Resources Corporation Ruling Leaves Defendants Who Assert Due Process Challenges to Punitive Damage Awards Still Searching for a Compass,”Oklahoma Law Review, 47 (Summer), 355–78.
70.
The Statute of Gloucester (1278), 6 Edward I.
71.
StevensClay R. (1994), “Split-Recovery: A Constitutional Answer to the Punitive Damage Dilemma,”Pepperdine Law Review, 21 (April), 857–908.
72.
StuartColbern C.III (1994), “Mean, Stupid Defendants Jarring Our Constitutional Sensibilities: Due Process Limits on Punitive Damages After TXO Production v. Alliance Resources,”California Western Law Review, 30 (Spring), 313–45.
73.
ToneyBradley D. (1994), “The Chaotic and Uncertain Due Process Challenge to Punitive Damages,”Willamette Law Review, 30 (Summer), 635–98.
74.
Toole v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967), 251 Cal.App.2d 689, 60 Cal.Rptr. 398.
YarabDonald S. (1990), “Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.: The Excessive Fines Clause and Punitive Damages,”Case Western Reserve Law Review, 40 (1990), 569–80.
