Civil Procedure Class Notes
Professor
Fairman brought us candy!!!
We
left off finishing Hatahley.
There
were three elements of damages:
1. The loss of
the horses and burros
2. The loss of
use of the livestock
3. Pain and
suffering
The
district court made mistakes on each of these elements:
1. The district
court should have sued the open market rule.
2. The district
court failed to consider the mitigation principle.
3. The district
court failed to individualize pain and suffering.
Hatahley dealt with a tort committed by the government. If that same tort had been committed by
neighboring ranchers, punitive damages would also have been available. The two cases of today cover punitive damages.
Punitive
damages
The
purpose of punitive damages is to punish, which is not a traditional
element of our civil justice system.
Typically, civil lawsuits aren’t about punishment. Largely we leave punishment to criminal law. There are reasons why: there are significant
differences in the way these cases are handled.
Who
drives the civil legal action? It’s plaintiffs! In criminal cases, the prosecutor runs the
show.
What’s
the standard of proof? It’s preponderance of the
evidence in a civil case. In criminal
cases, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt (a higher threshold). That’s why you can still have civil lawsuits
after criminal acquittals.
Who
imposes punishment? In a criminal case, the judge
assesses the punishment. In a civil
case, the jury assesses punitive damages.
Oberg
gets hurt in an ATV accident and gets lots of compensatory damages, and five
times as much in punitive damages. Oberg
gets a windfall in that he gets more than he needs to be put in the position he
was in before he was hurt (according to the jury). The Supreme Court of Oregon affirms the judgment
because
What
were
Justice
Stevens focuses on whether
If
states deviate from what most states do, the Court will scrutinize them
closely.
What
are we afraid of? Juries! Why are we afraid that they’ll do something unconstitutional? They’re sort of a mystery. They’re unpredictable. When people get hurt, juries make decisions
not necessarily according to the facts as presented or the law as they
understand it.
What
is the appropriate standard of review? They don’t say! The Court says that there must be a standard,
but they refuse to set one out. They
mention some that have been proposed, such as a finding of “passion and
prejudice” on behalf of the jury, “gross excessiveness” of the award, a
conclusion “against the great weight of the evidence”, or a finding that “no
rational trier of fact could have reached the same verdict”.
What
we learn from this case is not what the appropriate standard is, however, we
learn that there must be some standard.
The
Due Process Clause spawns two types of protections. This is the kind that we would call procedural
due process. That means there must
be a way to go about reviewing results.
The other half is substantive due process, as found in BMW.
Dr.
Gore sues BMW because some of their vehicles got acid rained on and they
repainted the vehicles without disclosing they’d done so. Not all cases are fact-driven, but Fairman
suggests that there’s a big difference between getting run over by an ATV and
getting a bad paint job.
Gore
gets $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages. The theory was that there were about 1,000
car buyers who were wronged by BMW’s non-disclosure.
The
Alabama Supreme Court cut the damages from $4,000,000 to $2,000,000 but BMW still
wasn’t happy and it appealed to the Supreme Court. BMW bases their appeal on the Fourteenth
Amendment, but they make a different argument than Honda did in the prior
case. It’s not that
Justice
Stevens writes again!
There
is a constitutional issue here. We might
say that all that is required is a process.
Due
process requires that you have notice that you might be deprived of your
property. You also must have notice of how
much you might be out for.
How
do we check whether the award is constitutional?
1. Reprehensibility
of conduct – Stevens says this is the most important indicator.
2. Ratio between compensatory
damages and punitive damages
3. Comparison
between punitive damages versus the awards in similar cases
Is
BMW’s behavior terribly reprehensible? There’s no safety or
performance issue. Painting over acid
rain paint damaged cars, as opposed to producing unsafe ATVs, for example, is
easy. Gore’s damages are only $4,000,
and it’s purely economic harm.
What
about Oberg? Was the conduct of Honda
reprehensible? Is Oberg made whole? Arguably not.
If punitive damages are tied to purely economic harm, they are given
much more scrutiny than if they are tied to individual personal injury. Some argue that there should be no punitive
damages for economic harm, since the injured party can be made whole purely
through compensatory damages.
Why
didn’t BMW remove to federal court? Gore
sued the local dealer as well as the manufacturer and distributor. This anchors the action in state court.