Opinion ID: 1927554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Management of Punitive Damages in Multi-Party Litigation

Text: The remaining issue, although not raised below, concerns how to resolve the problem of punitive damages in multiple-lawsuit, multi-party litigation. The basic principles of justice  that claimants be treated fairly, that litigation must come to an end, and that a party cannot be repeatedly sued on the same cause of action  are violated by excessive multiple punishments. Punitive damages may be inappropriate in situations where numerous plaintiffs file suit against the same defendant for damages arising out of a single mass disaster. Long, Punitive Damages: An Unsettled Doctrine, 25 Drake L.Rev. 870, 887 (1976). First, one plaintiff can collect a substantial award, thereby affecting another who may be equally deserving of such an award. Second, punitive damages are to reflect the total penalty which must be imposed to punish and deter the defendant. Bartolo v. Boardwalk Regency Hotel Casino, Inc., 185 N.J. Super. 534, 545 (Law Div. 1982) (citing Leimgruber v. Claridge Assocs., supra, 73 N.J. at 454). Third, courts should not relitigate identical issues or inflict repeated punishment for the same offense. Finally, by determining punitive damages on a case-by-case basis, courts are consuming their judicial resources. In order to avoid such problems, whenever possible, all punitive-damages claims should be pursued together in one class action. See Putz & Astiz, Punitive Damage Claims of Class Members Who Opt Out: Should They Survive?, 16 U.S.F.L. Rev. 1, 29-31 (1981); see also Morris, Punitive Damages in Tort Cases, 44 Harv.L.Rev. 1173, 1194 (1931) (When a defendant's conduct results in harm to more than one plaintiff there are no difficulties if there is but one suit); Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., supra, 378 F.2d at 839-40 n. 11. (If there were any way in which all cases could be assembled before a single court    it might be possible for a jury to make one award to be held for appropriate distribution among all successful plaintiffs). [3] Such a resolution would call for a court to play a more active role in the management of complex multi-party litigation of this type. It is simply impossible for a legal system to approach these problems in the way in which it previously considered lawsuits between individuals. See, e.g., Rosenberg, The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A Public Law Vision of the Tort System, 97 Harv.L.Rev. 849, 852 (1984) (if complex damage actions against manufacturers of toxic agents are tried under traditional methods of case-by-case adjudication, they will likely consume hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of public and private resources); Trangsrud, Joinder Alternatives in Mass Tort Litigation, 70 Cornell L.Rev. 779, 781-82 (1985) (The perceived inefficiencies, costs, and delays associated with mass tort litigation have provoked calls for reform   ). Traditionally, courts that adjudicate the rights of many parties to litigation, as in bankruptcy, trusts and estates, or other institutional settings, have undertaken such roles. The advantages of the class action would be many and varied. A class-action disposition would provide the most practical means of attacking the problems of mass-exposure litigation and punitive-damages claims. It would thus be possible to determine the rights of a large group of similarly interested claimants in a single proceeding. See Seltzer, Punitive Damages in Mass Tort Litigation: Addressing the Problems of Fairness, Efficiency and Control, 52 Fordham L.Rev. 37, 63 (1983). Unlimited multiple punishment for a single act determined in a succession of individual lawsuits and bearing no relation to the defendants' culpability or the actual injuries suffered by victims    would violate the sense of `fundamental fairness' that is essential to constitutional due process. In Re Federal Skywalk Cases, 680 F. 2d 1175, 1188 (8th Cir.1982) (citing Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., supra, 378 F. 2d at 838-41, and Putz & Astiz, supra, 16 U.S.F.L.Rev. at 29-31). By settling the punitive-damages issue in one proceeding, the defendant's entire liability would be determined, individual class claimants would receive a fair share of the sanction, and no further litigation of the issue would be needed. Class actions would promote the legal system's productivity in dealing with mass-exposure litigation. The purpose of class treatment of viable mass-exposure claims would not be to reallocate resources, but rather to conserve them for more productive use by reducing litigation and administration costs, thus awarding more benefits to the victim. See Rosenberg, supra, 97 Harv.L.Rev. at 910. The majority cites studies that show that between eleven million and thirteen million workers have been exposed to asbestos. Ante at 663. Other studies indicate that in the last forty years, over 21 million Americans have been significantly exposed to asbestos. See Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 750 F. 2d 1314, 1323 (5th Cir.1985). Not unexpectedly, more money is channelled to the expenses of litigation than to the expenses of the victims for recovery. Costs of adjudication in asbestos litigation total $1.59 to every $1 provided to a victim. Newman, Rethinking Fairness: Perspectives on the Litigation Process 7-8 (1984) (Thirty-ninth Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture) (citing Kakalik, Ebener, Felstiner, Haggstrom & Shanley, Variation in Asbestos Litigation, Compensation and Expenses 89, Table 9.3 (Institute for Civil Justice, Rand Corp. 1984)). As of January 1985, there were approximately 467 pending mass-exposure-asbestos claims in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the Superior Court of New Jersey there were approximately 1,316 personal-injury claims represented in 392 docketed asbestos cases venued in Middlesex County alone. Obviously, some of these docketed cases will be adjudicated before others. The class action would be fairer to all victims. Since punitive damages awarded in prior suits are a factor to be considered in determining the amount of such damages, Bartolo v. Boardwalk Regency Hotel Casino, Inc., supra, 185 N.J. Super. at 545 (citing 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 comment (e) (1979)), early litigators will be setting the trend by fixing money awards at the risk of victims who recover less later. [4] By allowing a class action in New Jersey, this Court would be promoting judicial economy by centralizing the litigation in the court that will adjudicate those primary issues related to the case. In Re Federal Skywalk Cases, supra, 680 F. 2d at 1186. I would not represent that we can undertake to resolve the national problems of asbestos litigation. See In re School Asbestos Litig., 789 F. 2d 996, 1008 (3d Cir.1986) (certification of nationwide class of punitive-damages claims related to property losses overruled). I also recognize that individual claimants have an important interest in separate trial of personal claims. Still, this Court has recognized a duty to deal with mass-exposure litigation. Beshada v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., supra, 90 N.J. 191; Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 553 F. Supp. 482 (D.N.J. 1982). Resolution of mass-exposure litigation can best be achieved by narrowing the issues that must be litigated. The justifications for imposing punitive damages include deterring outrageous conduct in the future, punishing such conduct, expressing society's disapproval of such outrageous conduct, and providing incentives for private civil enforcement. Mallor & Roberts, Punitive Damages: Toward a Principled Approach, 31 Hastings L.J. 639, 647-50 (1980). Class certification will achieve these goals. In addition, class-action certification will save time and money for the parties and for the public and will help courts to resolve multiple lawsuits and to manage multi-party litigation in the punitive-damages setting. In this case, because the trial court's charge to the jury was in terms of a mere preponderance of proof that the conduct of Johns-Manville met its test, and did not contain what I believe to be the necessary further definition of the appropriate standards for imposition of punitive damages, the judgment for punitive damages should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. I would invite consideration of certifying the punitive-damages claims for class disposition. For affirmance  Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER and POLLOCK  3. For reversal  Justices O'HERN and GARIBALDI  2.