stating that "the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the wrongdoer and to deter the wrongdoer and others from committing similar wrongs in the future"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the wrongdoer and to deter the wrongdoer and others from committing similar wrongs in the future"
- discussing factors that are relevant in determining, post-trial, whether a punitive damages award is excessive; among the factors are the "reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct," the "financial position of the defendant," and whether "the wrongful conduct was profitable to the defendant"
- noting but not deciding claim that post-trial review under Green Oil “is unconstitutionally vague and inadequate”
- discussing the purpose of punitive damages in the context of reviewing a *Page 1275 punitive-damages award for excessiveness
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I agree that the opinion correctly states the law on the factors that a trial judge may consider in reviewing a claim that a jury has awarded an excessive amount as punitive damages, but it does not address the question of what a jury can consider when determining the proper amount to award.
The United States Supreme Court will probably decide this term whether an award of punitive damages in a civil case is subject to the Eighth Amendment's "excessive fines" clause. Because the law regarding punitive damages awards is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, I thought it advisable to point out that I agree with the opinion's statement of law only as it applies to this particular case.