Review denied in Bullock v. Philip Morris

The California Supreme Court has denied review in Bullock v. Philip Morris (again).   To recap, that's the case in which the majority opinion upheld a $13.8 million punitive damages award that was 16 times the compensatory damages award of $850,000.  Although the U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages should be low (or even one-to-one) when compensatory damages are substantial, the majority held that $850,000 is not "substantial" when compared to the wealth of the defendant.  Justice Kitching dissented, arguing the defendant's wealth has nothing to do with whether a compensatory damages award is "substantial."  It will be interesting to see whether the next appellate opinion follows the majority or the dissent.


Related posts:

Plaintiffs answer petition for review in Bullock, amici line up to support petition

Petition for review filed in Bullock v. Philip Morris

Bullock v. Philip Morris Court of Appeal opinion affirms 16:1 punitive damages award

L.A. Jury Awards $13.8 Million in Punitive Damages to Smoker's Daughter in Bullock Retrial

California Supreme Court Denies Review in Bullock v. Philip Morris

Parties in Bullock v. Philip Morris File Reply Briefs Supporting Petitions for Review

Answers to Petitions for Review in Bullock v. Philip Morris

Plaintiff Files Petition for Review in Bullock v. Philip Morris

Philip Morris Files Petition for Review in Bullock v. Philip Morris

More on Bullock v. Philip Morris: Curing Legal Error with a Remittitur?

More on Bullock v. Philip Morris

Bullock v. Philip Morris—California Court of Appeal Reverses $28 Million Punitive Damages Award

Punitive damages default judgment affirmed (Akdot v. Olabuenaga)

When a defendant doesn't bother to defend himself against a lawsuit, the plaintiff can get a default judgment for punitive damages only if the plaintiff serves the defendant with a statement of the amount of punitive damages sought.  (See Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115.)  In this case, the plaintiff got a default judgment for $25,000 in punitive damages, but never served a statement of damages.  An easy reversal, right?  Not so fast.  The default judgment in this case was entered way back in 1990, well before the Legislature enacted the statute requiring a statement of damages (which happened in 1992).  Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) affirms in an unpublished opinion.

Los Angeles jury awards $65 million in punitive damages against hospital

California juries are in a giving mood when it comes to punitive damages lately.  On top of last week's mega-verdict against Ford, a jury in L.A awarded $65 million in punitive damages yesterday against the Encino-Tarzana Regional Medical Center, according to this report in the Contra Costa Times.  The plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by a male nursing assistant at the hospital.

The compensatory damages award is $2.36 million, resulting a punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio of roughly 27.5 to one, which will be very difficult for the plaintiff to defend in post-trial motions and on appeal.  Not surprisingly, the article says the hospital is already planning to appeal.

San Francisco jury awards $50 million in punitives against Ford

I'm a little late in reporting this story.  The Sacramento Bee reported last week that a jury in San Francisco awarded $73 million in damages against Ford, including $50 million in punitive damages, in a lawsuit arising from a fatal accident involving an Econoline van.  The plaintiffs accused Ford of despicable conduct in failing to notify consumers of a tire recall notice from Goodyear. Ford took the position that the deaths would not have occurred if the plaintiffs had been wearing their seat belts.

WLF publication criticizes punitive damages "white paper" issued by plaintiffs' group

The Washington Legal Foundation has published a Legal Backgrounder attacking a recent pro-plaintiff report on punitive damages.  The WLF report, authored by Victor Schwartz and Cary Silverman at the Shook Hardy firm, takes aim at a white paper released earlier this year by the Center on Justice & Democracy.

The WLF report makes some of the same points we made in our post about the white paper, including the observation that the white paper, despite claiming that limits on punitive damages are bad for society, offers no actual evidence that society is worse off in the majority of states that have now adopted caps or other limitations on punitive damages.

Missouri Supreme Court considering caps on punitive damages

We recently reported that the Arkansas Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the constitutionality of that state's cap on punitive damages.  According to this press release published in the Kansas City Star, the Missouri Supreme Court is considering a similar challenge to that state's law limiting punitive damages to $500,000.  Stay tuned.

Unpublished opinion reverses $500,000 punitive damages award against law school (Rose v. Whittier College)

Over the years, we've reported on quite a few unpublished opinions in which the California Court of Appeal has reversed a punitive damages award because the plaintiff failed to introduce meaningful evidence of the defendant's financial condition. This unpublished opinion from the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Two) is just the latest example.

The plaintiff in this case was a law professor at Whittier Law School.  He claimed the school fraudulently induced him to accept an early retirement package.  His lawyers persuaded a jury to award $350,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, but they neglected to present any evidence regarding the law school's financial condition.  On appeal, they tried to save the award by arguing that financial condition evidence is unnecessary when the record contains evidence that the defendant profited from its tortious conduct. 

The Court of Appeal held that there is a conflict in authority on this issue, but concluded that under the better reasoned authority, evidence of the profits from the wrongful conduct is not an adequate substitute for evidence of financial condition.  As a result, the court reversed the punitive damages award in its entirety.  I have no quibbles with the court's analysis, but I'm a little surprised the court didn't publish the opinion.  Ordinarily I would expect the court to publish an opinion that takes sides on an issue that has divided published opinions.

Ninth Circuit allows punitive damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Ditullio v. Boehm)

This Ninth Circuit opinion addresses the question whether a plaintiff may recover punitive damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which allows the victims of human trafficking to sue for "damages and reasonable attorneys fees."

The majority opinion, authored by Judge Fletcher, holds that punitive damages are available under the TVPA because it creates a tort claim, and the common law generally permits punitive damages for tort claims.  The opinion relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Wade, which held that punitive damages are available for section 1983 claims.  Judge Callahan's dissenting opinion states that the legislative history of the TVPA shows that Congress deliberately decided not to authorize recovery of punitive damages under that statute.  The Ninth Circuit appears to be the first federal circuit court to weigh in on this issue.  If another circuit adopts Judge Callahan's point of view, the issue may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.