Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Fox on Bifurcating Punis

Angry Michael Fox, over at Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer, argues that, contrary to conventional wisdom, defense counsel generally should not ask to bifurcate punitive damages.  Here's his analysis:

I [generally] opt against bifurcation. Basically, I don't want to be in the position of the defense attorney, having to come back after the jury has already hammered you, and your message is "now we get it." A hard sell when you have pushed hard to win on liability.

The clearest benefit is that you get to keep out the net worth of the company in the trial on the merits, but unless it is a stealth company, most jurors know that you are big.

I don't think that small benefit comes close to the cost of losing the opportunity of having it all settled in one bite, where if you have any jurors on your side, they probably have the best opportunity to effect a reasonable compromise.

And another factor I had not really considered is the anger of the jury. Sure, they are angry with you, because they found against you, including the issue, usually some sort of malice, that will justify punitive damages. But it's not that anger I am talking about.

It is the anger that they had to come back and do it again. Since jurors are not told about the possibility of punitive damages (at least in Texas), they are not aware when they answer that magical question a certain way they have just insured another day or two of jury service. Not exactly something that most of them are excited about.

rb

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2010/10/fox-on-bifurcating-punis.html

Employment Common Law, Employment Discrimination | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01348802d3ee970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fox on Bifurcating Punis:

Comments

Post a comment