Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Cal Punitive Damages has posted links to the opening set of merits briefs in Philip Morris v. Williams III. The Court granted review back in June on the first question presented:
"Whether, after this Court has adjudicated the merits on a party's federal claim and remanded the case to state court with instructions to "apply" the correct constitutional standard, the state court may interpose -- for the first time in the litigation -- a state-law procedural bar that is neither firmly established nor regularly followed."
The Court declined to review the second issue presented, namely the constitutional excessiveness of the punitive damages award. - SBS
The Court declined to review the second issue presented, namely the constitutional excessiveness of the punitive damages award.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Senator John McCain's running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, comments on Exxon Shipping v. Baker, in which the Supreme Court reduced the punitive damages award to $515 million. In the interview (from last June), Palin expressed her "disappointment" in the Court decision. Cal Punitive Damages has the video interview.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
We hope to have a "Roundup" category in the near future. In the meantime, however, you can find previous editions of the Roundup by scrolling under the Current Affairs category (in the Topical Archive off to the lower right).
Now on to the week in torts:
Reform, Legislation, Policy
- Bills to overturn the Supreme Court's preemption decision in Riegel v. Medtronic have been introduced in both the House and Senate. [TortsProf, Point of Law, Drug&Device]
- FDA to advertise a fake blood pressure drug in order to study whether the visuals divert consumers from the warnings. [Pharmalot]
- NY Assembly Speaker makes personal loans to Counsel Financial, a company that finances plaintiffs' contingency fee litigation. [NY Times]
- State AGs, lawyers and lobbyists all attend Conference of Western Attorneys General. [Legal Newsline]
- Senate bill would create "Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute" to review clinical research on drugs, devices and surgical procedures. [Pharmalot]
- FDA announces new conflict-of-interest rules for advisory committees. [FDA, SanFran Chronicle]
- Debate on medical malpractice. [Overlawyered]
- Finally, a lawsuit in the salmonella outbreak [WSJ Law Blog].
- Class action against Ford over not-so-limited edition Mustang. [Reuters]
- Another mortgage meltdown suit: Connecticut sues Countrywide, alleging company violated state consumer protection laws by misleading borrowers to take on loans that they could not afford. CT joins California, Illinois, Florida and the City of San Diego in pursuing litigation against the financial lender. [Newsday/AP]
- Beat up because he's a Red Sox fan; suing the Yankees [MassLive.com].
- Second amended complaint in AutoAdmit lawsuit identifies one defendant. [ABA Journal, WSJ Law Blog, Overlawyered]
- Medblogs give outsiders chance to eavesdrop on break-room conversations and learn insiders thoughts on clinical studies. [LA Times, GruntDoc]
Trials, Settlements & Other Ends
- Judge tosses Don King's libel suit against ESPN. [American Lawyer via Law.com]
- 8 year old skier sued for collision with adult settles suit. [Overlawyered]
- Food manufacturers settle suit by the CA AG concerning carcinogen levels in potato products. [TortsProf].
- Trials galore, free to watch online [The Mac Lawyer].
- Mapractice suit against white collar defense lawyer Michele Roberts dismissed with prejudice. [BLT, Legal Times/law.com]
- Study finds settlement nets more cash than trial. [NY Times]
- Second Circuit certifies strict liability question on "when a seller of used machinery may be deemed a regular seller" to New York Court of Appeals. [Court's opinion (pdf), NY Law Journal/law.com]
- Fourth Circuit rejects defamation claim against Air American radio host. [AmLawyer/Law.com]
- In a case of first impression, Seventh Circuit affirms removal of 144 plaintiff Burlington Northern wood processing case to federal court under CAFA's provision for "mass actions." [Court's opinion (pdf), Business Insurance]
- Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of switched-at-birth suit under Federal Tort Claims Act on SOL grounds. [OnPoint]
- Ninth Circuit considering meaning of "interception" in civil e-mail hacking lawsuit. [WaPo]
- Federal Circuit hears oral argument in Bikini Atoll nuclear case. [WSJ Law Blog]
- House passes bill authorizing unlimited punitive damages in pay discrimination cases. [Cal Punitive Damages]
- Bryan Cave starts FDA practice group. [BLT]
- Okay, this has nothing to do with torts or personal injury, but I just love those guys over at JibJab.
Shameless Self-Promotion (favorite posts of this week)
- Bill: Q: What'd you do today, Daddy? A: Um, dug around domain registrations and corporate filings. Good times!
- Sheila: Animal Law Conversation at Slippery Slope.
If you enjoy the Roundup, please send us suggested links; our e-mail addresses are to the left.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Welcome to the first Personal Injury Roundup (and, like Eric, I've no idea whether it should be "round up," "round-up", or "roundup," but let's go with "roundup") on TortsProf. We hope to maintain the quality of his year doing it and that of Brooks. As always, but especially for this, we'd love suggested links; e-mail addresses are off to the left.
It's getting to the end of summer, with all of us scrambling to finish various pieces, but it's still an interesting week in TortLand.
Reform, Legislation, Policy
- Public Citizen criticizes the pro-arbitration analysis performed in recent Chamber studies. [Public Citizen].
- Eric Turkewitz's op-ed published in regional NY paper; Ted Frank starts a dialogue on the statistics used within; commenters include Turkewitz and people from Public Citizen, originator of the stat in question [NY PI Law Blog, Overlawyered].
- Reforms in New Zealand [SSRN].
- Congress sends president bill banning lead, etc., in toys [AP, see also this week on TortsProf, and two-plus years ago on TortsProf].
- In a civil suit, what would have been said about this case without video? [Simple Justice]
- Six Flags discovery muddles along; 77 deps and at least 18 more months until trial on an accident that happened over a year ago [TortsProf].
- Bad documents from Zyprexa production in Alaska suggest avoidance of diabetes talk by reps [WSJ Health Blog].
Experts & Science
- Ongoing discussion of the "pharma-free expert list" prepared for journalists; most focuses on the import, or not, of it including some who have been paid litigation experts for plaintiffs [TortsProf, Beck & Herrmann, Tort Deform, Pharmalot, and HealthNewsReview.org (the list is there)].
Trials & Settlements
- An update on the Kivalina global warming litigation: Defendants have moved to dismiss arguing no cognizable tort. Hearing is scheduled for Dec. 9th. [Point of Law].
- Libya & U.S. are close to a settlement relating to 1980s terrorism [WSJ Law Blog].
- Mirapex/compulsive gambling bellwether trials start and one ends with a plaintiff's verdict [WSJ Law Blog; Pharmalot (notes $8.2 million verdict, evidently including punitives).
- $16 million verdict against Allstate upheld; could have settled the case for $50K limits [KansasCity.com].
- ScotusBlog discusses and links to Sharkey's Riegel piece and notes Levine's argument date (Nov. 3) [ScotusBlog].
- The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld a $13 million punitive damages award against Chrysler in a suit claiming that a collapsing minivan seat caused the death of a eight month old baby. [Point of Law, Overlawyered, ABA Journal]. Chrysler plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn at the helm. [AmLaw Daily].
- Real earthquake interrupts fake judge [YouTube].
- Ben & Jerry's marketing people are pretty sure the lawyers wouldn't like that video [Turkewitz, and read the URL, Ted].
- How I ended up in a chicken costume [Spare the Rock, Spoil the Child].
Shameless Self-Promotion (favorite posts of this week)
- Bill's: Okay, it's before this week, but hey, it's the first time we've done the round-up: And with that, a surgeon's insurer's head explodes.
- Sheila's: No Punitive Damages for NY Smokers.
Hey, that was fun. See you next week.
August 1, 2008 in Current Affairs, Damages, Experts & Science, Goofy Cases, Legislation, Reforms, & Political News, MDLs and Class Actions, Products Liability, Roundup, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
In a decision last week, the New York Appellate Division (First Dept.) held that individual punitive damages claims by NY smokers are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court reasoned that the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco companies extinguished claims for punitive damages:
[A] claim by a private attorney general to vindicate what is an essentially public interest in imposing a punitive sanction cannot lie where, as here, that interest has been previously and appropriately represented by the State Attorney General in an action addressed, on behalf of all of the people of the State, including plaintiffs and the decedent, to the identical misconduct.
The court rejected the idea that punitive damages serve any private purposes:
[P]unitive damages claims are quintessentially and exclusively public in their ultimate orientation and purpose, and in that respect peculiarly appropriate for prosecution by the Attorney General in parens patriae. Such claims do not, even when asserted in the context of a personal injury action, essentially relate to individual injury. They are allowed, "not to compensate the injured party but rather to punish the tortfeasor and to deter th[e] wrongdoer and others similarly situated from indulging in the same conduct in the future". Indeed, the courts of this State have been so adamant that punitive damages are "a social exemplary remedy,' [and] not a private compensatory remedy," that the imposition of such damages for private purposes has been held to violate public policy.
A claim for punitive damages may, of course, be rooted in personal injury, but for such a claim to succeed the injury must be shown to be emblematic of much more than individually sustained wrong. It must be shown to reflect pervasive and grave misconduct affecting the public generally, to, in a sense, merge with a serious public grievance, and thus merit punitive, indeed quasi-criminal sanction by the State. As Chief Judge Breitel observed in Garrity, punitive damages are in their true aspect a prerogative reserved to the State for the accomplishment of social purposes, and it is thus fitting that those who pursue such damages in the context of private actions should be viewed as acting in the State's behalf, as "private attorneys general." (internal citations omitted).
(My thanks to Meredith Miller for alerting me to the opinion).
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided the Exxon Valdez [pdf] punitive damages case today. (Justice Alito did not participate in the decision). The majority opinion was authored by Justice Souter. The Court found the punitive damages award excessive as a "matter of federal maritime law," and imposed a 1:1 ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages. This holding reduced the punitive damages award to just over $500 million.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
SCOTUSBlog is liveblogging today's orders and opinions and reports that the Court granted cert. in the Williams v. Philip Morris case. You can browse our damages category for many posts about Williams and other punitive damages cases.
A later post states: "Note to readers: the grant in Phillip Morris was limited to the first question presented, regarding the Oregon state law procedural bar."
Friday, June 6, 2008
We are still waiting for the Court's decision on the cert petition in Philip Morris v. Williams, the Oregon punitive damages case upholding a 100 to 1 ratio despite remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition has been punted three times now. Originally scheduled for discussion at the May 22d conference, the petition was re-listed for discussion at the May 29th conference and again at the June 5th conference. Assuming (a big assumption at this point!) that a decision was reached yesterday, the order will be out on Monday.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
No word yet in Philip Morris v. Williams, the Oregon punitive damages case upholding a 100 to 1 ratio despite remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition for certiorari was distributed for discussion at the Justice's conference on May 22d, but was not mentioned on the orders list [pdf] released yesterday.
Notably, as former Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in his book (and elsewhere), petitions of interest to any Justice are placed on the "discuss list" for the conference; petitions not listed on the discuss list are denied. So presumably Philip Morris made the discuss list for the May 22d conference. It's possible that the Court is holding the Philip Morris petition pending its decision in Exxon v. Baker. SCOTUS Blog has listed Philip Morris as a "petition to watch," which means that Akim Gump partner Tom Goldstein has deemed it "to have a reasonable chance of being granted."
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
A photographer has filed a personal injury suit against actor Keanu Reeves based on allegations that Reeves struck the photographer with his car. The suit brings negligence and assault & battery claims. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount in compensatory and punitive damages. Yesterday, Judge Elizabeth Grimes of the L.A. Superior Court denied Reeves's motion to strike the punitive damages claim.
(Via California Punitive Damages).
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
On Monday, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff stated that he is open to a cap on punitive damages awards.
To help improve the state's legal climate, Shurtleff said caps on punitive damage awards would, among other things, help prevent physicians from being driven from Utah by skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums, as has happened in Nevada.
"A lot of times those punitive damages awards are outrageous, and the cumulative effect, particularly when it comes to medical malpractice litigation, can create a situation like they have in Nevada," Shurtleff said.
Doctors are just leaving the Silver State because they can't afford their insurance premiums anymore, "and a big part of that is because of these horrific damage awards that are being awarded in some of these cases," he said.
Via Legal Newsline.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Charleston Law Review has published its 2008 symposium volume, which contains articles and essays from the punitive damages symposium that we held back in September. Check out the contents:
Sheila B. Scheuerman, Introduction, Punitive Damages, Due Process & Deterrence: The Debate After Philip Morris v. Williams. (Provides an overview and summary of each essay and article in the volume). Download a copy of the Introduction: Download 4_scheuerman_introduction.pdf
Anthony J. Sebok, After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the "Single-Digit" Ratio? Download a copy of Sebok's Essay [pdf file]: Download 5_sebok.pdf
Anthony J. Franze, Clinging to Federalism: How Reluctance to Amend State Law-Based Punitive Damages Procedures Impedes Due Process. Download a copy of Franze's Essay [pdf file]: Download 6_franze.pdf
Neil Vidmar & Matthew W. Wolfe, Fairness Through Guidance: Jury Instruction on Punitive Damages After Philip Morris v. Williams. (Available through SSRN).
Christopher J. Robinette, Peace: A Public Purpose for Punitive Damages. (Available through SSRN).
Keith N. Hylton, Due Process and Punitive Damages: An Economic Approach. Download a copy of Hylton's Article: Download 9_hylton.pdf
Victor E. Schwartz & Christopher E. Appel, Putting the Cart Before the Horse: The Prejudicial Practice of a "Reverse Bifurcation" Approach to Punitive Damages. Download a copy of Schwartz's Article: Download 10_schwartz.pdf
Elizabeth J. Cabraser & Robert J. Nelson, Class Action Treatment of Punitive Damages Issues After Philip Morris v. Williams: We Can Get There From Here. Download a copy of Cabraser's Article: Download 11_cabraser.pdf
Byron G. Stier, Now It's Personal: Punishment and Mass Tort Litigation After Philip Morris v. Williams. Download a copy of Stier's Article: Download 12_stier.pdf
Michael L. Rustad, The Uncert-Worthiness of the Court's Unmaking of Punitive Damages. Download a copy of Rustad's Article: Download 13_rustad.pdf
My thanks again to the symposium participants for a lively and enjoyable discussion. And my congratulations to Charleston 3Ls Matt Kendall (Editor in Chief), and Christy Fargnoli (Symposium Editor) as well as the entire Charleston Law Review staff for a very interesting collection of essays and articles!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
In a decision released last week, the Oregon Supreme Court has set a presumptive 4 to 1 ratio for punitive damages in economic injury cases: "[A]s a very general rule of thumb, the federal constitution prohibits any punitive damages award that significantly exceeds four times the amount of the injured party's compensatory damages, as long as the injuries caused by the defendant were economic, not physical."
In sharp contrast to the Philip Morris remand decision upholding an nearly 100 to 1 ratio (prior posts here, here, and here), the court noted " we think that, if a nine-to-one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is at the limit of what the Due Process Clause normally will allow a court to impose on any tortious conduct [including physical injury], then the limit must be significantly lower for conduct that causes or risks only economic injury." This language certainly seems to support Tony Sebok's position that the Philip Morris remand was a results-oriented outcome designed to avoid giving a "win" to an unpopular defendant.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
In his latest FindLaw column, Tony Sebok addresses the Oregon Supreme Court's decision to again affirm a $79.5 million punitive damages award against Philip Morris following remand by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Sebok points out, "[t]he Oregon Supreme Court held that reinstatement of the award was appropriate because there were independent and adequate state law grounds for doing so." But, as Sebok notes, "[t]hose grounds had never been previously identified by the Oregon Supreme Court in its two earlier decisions (the ones that had been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.)" Sebok argues that the Oregon Supreme Court put "form over substance" in a results-oriented fashion in order to avoid "giving a victory to a hated tobacco-company defendant." While Sebok finds it unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant cert in this case for the third time, he expresses his hope that the USSC will GVR the case because "[t]hat would be a fitting response to a state court that seems to think that winning is the only thing that matters."