Opinion ID: 1695459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: As Interpreted Here, Hammond Procedures are Inadequate

Text: The procedure adopted by this Court in Hammond and Green Oil Co. to review jury awards of punitive damages has been commended as a procedure designed to ensure that a defendant's constitutional right to due process of law will be protected. A majority of this Court said the following in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 553 So.2d 537, 543 (Ala.1989), affirmed, Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991): We also note that, in an abundance of concern for the preservation and protection of a defendant's constitutional right to due process of law, this Court has adopted guidelines to be used by the trial court in reviewing judgments. [Citing Hammond; Harmon v. Motors Ins. Corp., 493 So.2d 1370 (Ala.1986); and Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 493 So.2d 1379 (Ala. 1986).] The Court then said: [The guidelines] require the trial judge to reflect on the record his or her reasons for either interfering or not interfering with a jury's verdict. 553 So.2d at 543. The concern for the preservation and protection of a defendant's constitutional right to due process of law that this Court expressed in Haslip, 553 So.2d at 543, seems hollow in view of today's holding. Similarly, the statement by the Supreme Court of the United States in Haslip that [t]he Hammond test ensures meaningful and adequate review by the trial court whenever a jury has fixed the punitive damages, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1044, is meaningless if the meaningful and adequate review by the trial court (emphasis added) can be overturned by a stroke of an appellate court's pen, as has happened here. If the verdict of the jury is presumed to be correct, how meaningful and adequate can the review by the trial court and this Court be? It would not be meaningful and adequate unless the reviewing court could conduct an independent review.