Challenging the Constitutionality of Punitive Damages: Putting Rules of Reason on an Unbounded Legal Remedy

Plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility: Implications for compensatory and punitive damage awards.

“…This article reports the results of a study on the factors that influence jurors’ decisions about punitive and compensatory damages. Interest in the size and scope of punitive awards has increased greatly in recent years, in part because of (1) tort reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives in 1995 that imposes a cap on punitive damages, (2) appellate courts’ willingness to examine the constitutionality of these awards (e.g., Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 1991; TXO Production Corp. V. Alliance Resources Corp., 1993), and (3) controversial assertions that juries award punitive damages more frequently and more extravagantly than they had in the past (Ellis, 1989; Sales & Cole, 1984; Schwartz & Magarian, 1990). Former Vice-President Dan Quayle has asserted that “as (punitive) awards become more common, so do the instances of their arbitrary, even freakish application” (Quayle, 1991).…”

“…5For example, Schwartz and Magarian (1990) suggest that because jurors are not instructed on the factors they should consider in assessing damages, their decisions about damages are essentially impulsive. They also point to the possibility that when jurors hear evidence about the defendant’s wealth in the same proceeding in which they consider questions of liability and compensatory damages, information about the former influences their decisions about the latter.…”

Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards.

“…Four major criticisms have been the primary sources of controversy over the amount of punitive damage awards. First, critics assert the awards are unpredictable and erratic, that similar cases can receive vastly different awards (Huber, 1989; Jeffries, 1986; Kahneman, Schkade, & Sunstein, 1998; Sales & Cole, 1984; Schwartz & Magarian, 1990; Sunstein, Kahneman, & Schkade, 1998). Second, critics assert the awards are often excessive, that if the goals are deterrence and retributive punishment, the amounts are too large to efficiently achieve those goals (Huber, 1988; Mahoney & Littlejohn, 1989; Note, 1992; Quayle, 1994).…”