Opinion ID: 1597299
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Punitive Damages and a Single Defendant

Text: I agree with Justice Scalia, in his observation that the majority of the United States Supreme Court in TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2711, 2727, 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993), approved procedures for upholding the constitutionality of punitive damages that were far less detailed and restricted than those upheld in [ Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991)] (Scalia, J., with Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). We no longer have to worry about the relationship of the amount of compensatory damages to the amount of punitive damages, which never made sense to me, for it did not foster the purpose of punishing and deterring. I also agree with Justice Kennedy that the United States Constitution does not concern itself with dollar amounts, ratios, or the quirks of juries in specific jurisdictions. TXO, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2724 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). A plurality of the United States Supreme Court takes the position that there exists a substantive due process right that punitive damages be reasonable. TXO, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2726. I believe that under Haslip, as explained by TXO, if a jury is instructed to consider the gravity of the defendant's wrong and the need to deter similar wrongful conduct and the jury's determination is reviewed by trial and appellate courts to ensure that the jury verdict is reasonable, a defendant has received all the process the defendant is due, procedurally and substantively.