Punitive damages hold a very specific place in American tort law. Although the goal of tort law is to compensate someone who has been injured through the fault of someone else, punitive damages serve no compensatory function. In fact, punitive damages are awarded over and above any compensatory award given to the injured plaintiff.
What is the Purpose of Punitive Damages?
In Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, the authors explain that punitive damages "are given to the plaintiff over an above the full compensation for the injuries, for the purpose of punishing the defendant, of teaching the defendant not to do it again, and of deterring others from following the defendant's example."
Because, as the name suggests, punitive damages are intended as punishment, this means that the defendant's behavior must arise to a level that merits punishment. Thus, as Prosser and Keeton point out, "something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required" for punitive damages.
According to John F. O'Connell, author of Remedies in a Nutshell, in deciding whether punitive damages are appropriate, a jury must consider whether the defendant's conduct has been "malicious, reckless, oppressive, abusive, evil, wicked, or so gross that some type of deterrent punishment is necessary." Punitive damages are therefore not available in cases of simple negligence. Moreover, as O'Connell observes, punitive damages are usually not awarded unless the plaintiff has suffered an actual loss or injury.
Punitive Damages are Controversial
Perhaps because punitive damages are not compensatory in nature, they are often viewed as an undeserved windfall for the plaintiff (and, by extension, for the plaintiff's attorney). Additionally, because punitive damages are awarded as punishment for bad behavior, there have been cases in which extraordinarily high awards for relatively insignificant conduct have grabbed media attention and garnered criticism.
An example of the latter situation occurred in BMW v. Gore. In that case, the plaintiff sued the car manufacturer because his new vehicle had been repainted before he purchased it, and by law, this fact should have been disclosed to him but was not. The jury awarded the plaintiff $4,000 in compensatory damages, and awarded $4 million in punitive damages.
In reviewing the BMW case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an award of punitive damages violates the U.S. Constitution if it is "grossly excessive." The Court set forth three "guideposts" to determine whether a punitive damages award is excessive, including:
- The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, including a consideration of whether the plaintiff's harm was physical or economic.
- The disparity between the harm the plaintiff suffered and the punitive damages award.
- The difference between the remedy and any civil penalties imposed in comparable cases.
If, after considering all the circumstances, a court finds that a punitive damages award is grossly excessive, it may reduce the amount of the award.
Punitive Damages in American Tort Law
Punitive damages exist to punish intentional, malicious or reckless behavoir that actually causes injury to the plaintiff. Such a remedy is available only in cases in which the defendant's conduct is truly reprehensible. Nevertheless, a punitive damages award that is considered grossly excessive under the guideposts set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court violates due process and will be subject to being reduced.
Sources:
W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton & David G. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts (5th ed., West 1984).
John F. O'Connell, Remedies in a Nutshell (2nd ed., West 1985).
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 599 (1995).
Disclaimer: This article is in no way intended as legal advice. For help with specific legal issues, one should contact a licensed attorney in one's local area.
Jessie Vanwinkle - Jessie Vanwinkle is an attorney in practice since 1998. View her full profile for more information.
Join the Conversation