# Adams v. Murakami

> California Supreme Court · August 15, 1991 · 54 Cal. 3d 105

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9622103

## Case

- **Full name:** MYRETTA ADAMS, as Conservator, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLIFFORD MURAKAMI, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 15, 1991
- **Citations:** 54 Cal. 3d 105; 284 Cal. Rptr. 318; 91 Daily Journal DAR 10059; 813 P.2d 1348; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6506; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 3448
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Baxter, Kennard, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 295 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by People v. First Federal Credit Corp., 104 Cal. App. 4th 721 (2002).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9622103

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that plaintiffs must present meaningful evidence of a defendant’s financial condition in part because courts must review punitive damages awards for excessiveness, and an “award can be so disproportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay that the award is excessive fo…
- recognizing “the profitability of the defendant’s misconduct” as one measure of the ability to pay punitive damages
- noting that “absent financial evidence, a jury will 19 be encouraged (indeed, required) to speculate as to a defendant’s net worth in seeking to return a 20 verdict that will appropriately punish the defendant”
- holding that evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages
- affirming trial court's interpretation of letter as denial of coverage even though letter asked for information about loss and indicated willingness to investigate information further

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J.
Concurring. I concur in the judgment. I agree that evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages, and that the burden is on the plaintiff to introduce such evidence.
In my view, however, we should not address any constitutional questions in this case. I write separately, therefore, to emphasize that I do not join in the majority’s unnecessary discussion of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip (1991) 499 U.S. _ [ 113 L.Ed.2d 1 , 111 S.Ct. 1032 ],
California courts have long adhered to the policy that constitutional questions ordinarily should be reached only if the matter at hand cannot otherwise reasonably be resolved. (Estate of Johnson (1903) 139 Cal. 532, 534 [ 73 P. 424 ]; accord, e.g., People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 90 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 793 P.2d 23 ].) Because the power of the courts to declare a law or practice unconstitutional is an “ultimate power,” resort to decision on constitutional grounds when other bases for decision are present generally should be avoided in the exercise of appropriate judicial self-restraint. (E.g., Syrek v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 519, 526 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 97 , 354 P.2d 625 ].) This prudent judicial policy also counsels against judicial explications of constitutional issues that do not amount to separate bases for decision.
The majority’s discussion of the nonconstitutional grounds for holding that a plaintiff must introduce evidence of a defendant’s financial condition as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages adequately resolves the issue here. Any analysis by this court of the effect of Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, supra, 499 U.S._, on California law should await a case in which that decision’s constitutional ramifications for California law are plainly at issue, and have been raised, briefed and determined in the trial and appellate courts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9622103. Public record. Not legal advice.