Opinion ID: 730824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ratio to Actual Harm Inflicted on the Plaintiff

Text: 27 In considering the ratio between a punitive damage award and the actual harm inflicted, the second Gore factor, the proper inquiry is whether there is a reasonable relationship between the punitive damages award and the harm likely to result from the defendant's conduct as well as the harm that actually occurred. Gore, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1602 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It therefore seems to be a great problem for the plaintiff that the punitive damage award is 200,000 times greater than the nominal compensatory award. Still, the Supreme Court has stressed that the reasonableness of such a relationship is no simple mathematical formula: 28 Indeed, low awards of compensatory damages may properly support a higher ratio than high compensatory awards, if, for example, a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages. A higher ratio may also be justified in cases in which the injury is hard to detect or the monetary value of noneconomic harm might have been difficult to determine. 29 Id. 30 In Gore, the Court found the 500 to 1 ratio in that contract dispute to be breathtaking. --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1602. But that observation does not necessarily control the fair ratios in a § 1983 case. We have said that punitive damages may be awarded in a § 1983 case, even if the compensatory damages are only nominal. See King v. Macri, 993 F.2d 294, 297-98 (2d Cir.1993) (citing cases). The Supreme Court's observations in Gore reinforce that view: violations of civil rights may very well be particularly egregious acts that result in only a small amount of economic damages or injuries whose monetary value is difficult to determine. Gore, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1602. Because the compensatory award here was nominal, any appreciable exemplary award would produce a ratio that would appear excessive by this measure. 31 In Gore, a 500 to 1 ratio was breathtaking. However, in a § 1983 case in which the compensatory damages are nominal, a much higher ratio can be contemplated while maintaining normal respiration. Since the use of a multiplier to assess punitive damages is not the best tool here, we must look to the punitive damage awards in other civil rights cases to find limits and proportions. We do that in Section II, in which we determine the proper amount of the remittitur. 32