Supreme Court: punitive damage awards upheld.For the second time in two years, the Years, The the seven decades of Eleanor Pargiter’s life. [Br. Lit.: Benét, 1109] See : Time U.S. Supreme Court upheld a large punitive damage award. In reviewing a case in which punitive damages Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer. were 526 times the amount of compensatory damages A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment, or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. , the Court rejected arguments that such awards violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court stressed a punitive award's reasonableness should be considered in determining whether it violated the due process clause. Factors to consider include the amount of money potentially at stake, the bad faith of the party against which the award was assessed and that party's wealth. Professionals (including CPAs) and business groups had hoped the Court would take this opportunity to establish objective guidelines guidelines, n.pl a set of standards, criteria, or specifications to be used or followed in the performance of certain tasks. to determine whether huge punitive awards are constitutionally permissible. But in its ruling, the Court dashed any hope lower courts would have such guidance. Barring intervention by states on a statutory level, it is likely professionals will continue to see punitive damage awards that are grossly dissproportionate to the compensatory damages awarded a plaintiff. (TXO TXO Taxi Orange (Austrian reality TV show) Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., U.S. Sup. Ct. no 92-479) |
|
||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion