Damages. Punitive Damages May Be Awarded without Compensatory Damages Where Injury Is Shown

1957 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 105 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Compensatory Damages

scholarly journals Punishing Tobacco Industry Misconduct: The Case for Exceeding a Single Digit Ratio Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara D. Guardino ◽  
Richard A. Daynard
Keyword(s):  
Digit Ratio ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
State Farm ◽  
Single Digit ◽  
Knowing That ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Philip Morris ◽  
Compensatory Damages ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Smoking And Health

In State Farm v. Campbell, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages” will be constitutional. Several appeals courts have mistaken this language to be a strict mandate prohibiting punitive damages awards in excess of nine times the compensatory damages amount. This trend, however, may be changing. For example, in one recent smoking and health case brought against Philip Morris, an Oregon appeals court allowed a punitive damages award that was almost 97 times the compensatory damages award. This decision was based on the court’s finding that Philip Morris “used fraudulent means to continue a highly profitable business knowing that, as a result, it would cause death and injury to large numbers of Oregonians.” This article proposes that such wrongdoing (or, “primary” reprehensibility) justifies high punitive damages awards in the context of smoking and health litigation.

An Examination of the Legal Liability Associated with Outsourcing and Offshoring Audit Procedures

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Lyubimov ◽  
Vicky Arnold ◽  
Steve G. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Professional Services ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Close Proximity ◽  
Compensatory Damages ◽  
Organizational Distance ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Main Effects

SUMMARY: Accounting firms have steadily increased the use of outsourcing and offshoring of professional services including independent audit procedures. While firms suggest that the work is of higher quality and similar litigation risk, questions remain as to whether public perceptions may be more negative. This paper examines liability associated with an audit failure when work is performed by another office of the same firm or outsourced to a separate firm, and whether the work is performed domestically or in another country. Results indicate main effects for outsourcing on compensatory damages and an interaction between outsourcing and offshoring on punitive damages. Surprisingly, jurors assess higher than expected litigation awards for a failure by another domestic office of the firm for punitive damages. This result suggests that the close proximity in terms of both geography and organizational distance of the domestic office of the firm leads jurors to find the audit failure less understandable. Post hoc analyses indicate that potential jurors perceive that work completed by another domestic office of the firm has the highest expected quality and lowest risk, while work that is outsourced offshore is expected to be lowest quality and highest risk—consistent with proximity theory.

A UNIVERSITY AND FOUR SCIENTISTS MUST PAY FOR PILFERED WORK

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-264
Author(s):  
J. F. L.
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
University Of Alabama ◽  
Federal Grants ◽  
False Claims Act ◽  
The Government ◽  
Civil War Era ◽  
Compensatory Damages ◽  
The University

A Federal judge in Baltimore today ordered the University of Alabama and four of its scientists to pay the Government and a researcher a total of $1.9 million for stealing her work and using it as their own to obtain Federal grants. The case, decided by a jury, was unusual because the researcher, Dr Pamela A. Berge, an epidemiologist who now works for Pfizer Inc, had gone to court under the Federal False Claims Act, a Civil War-era statute rarely used in cases involving scientific misconduct. ...Officials at Alabama, speaking for the university and the four scientists, said in a statement that the verdict was "not consistent with or supported by the evidence" and would likely be appealed. The jury found that each of the scientists had individually committed malicious acts of fraud against Dr Berge by claiming her work as his own, by using it to gain grants, and by publishing it in a scientific journal without crediting her. The university was held liable for aiding the fraud. The jury said the Government had been harmed by the fraudulent claims in applications for grants. The university was ordered to pay $1.66 million, of which Dr Berge's share would be $498 000 and the remainder the Federal Government's. The scientists—Drs Robert F. Pass, Sergio B. Stagno, Charles Alford, and Karen B. Fowler—were ordered to pay collectively $50 000 in compensatory damages to Dr Berge and $215 000 in punitive damages.

16. Damages for Personal Injury

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Medical Care ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Compensatory Damages

The tortious infliction of injury to another person is remedied through the award of damages. This chapter discusses the different types of damages (compensatory damages, restitutionary damages, exemplary or punitive damages, aggravated damages, nominal damages, and contemptuous damages); lump sums and periodical payments; and damages for personal injury (non-pecuniary losses, loss of earnings, medical care, and deductions).

Product Liability: Florida Jury Finds that Cigarettes Caused Smoker's Disease

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-197
Author(s):  
Matthew Morton
Keyword(s):  
Health Risks ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Punitive Damage ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
The Public ◽  
Former Smokers ◽  
Compensatory Damages ◽  
First Time

On April 7,2000 a Florida jury ordered the tobacco industry to pay $12.7 million in compensatory damages to three former smokers who were chosen to represent hundreds of thousands of Florida residents in an unprecedented class action lawsuit. The decision not only marks the first time that a jury has found on behalf of smokers in a class action lawsuit, it also sets the stage for a huge punitive damage award against the industry. The awards followed a finding by the same jury last July that the cigarette manufacturers have “acted with reckless disregard” and “engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct” while conspiring to mislead the public about the health risks of smoking. These previous findings make it likely that there will be punitive damages levied against the tobacco companies when the jury reconvenes in May.

Should punitive damages be part of the judicial arsenal in contract cases?

Legal Studies ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Cunnington
Keyword(s):  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Traditional Assumption ◽  
Compensatory Damages

This paper challenges the traditional assumption that punitive damages are unavailable for breach of contract. It is shown that Addis v Gramophone provides weak authority for this assumption. The paper considers whether there is a logically coherent argument for retaining punitive damages in tort, while denying them for breach of contract, and it is shown that there is not. The main arguments advanced against punitive damages in civil proceedings are examined and shown to be unpersuasive. Finally, the efficient breach theory is considered and rejected on the ground that it significantly underestimates the costs associated with breach. In conclusion, the paper recommends that punitive damages should be exceptionally awarded to deter outrageous breaches of contract in cases where compensatory damages are inadequate and gain-based damages are unavailable.

scholarly journals The regulations in the field of criminal law in the statute of Sochaczew of 27 April 1377

1970 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 69-79
Author(s):  
Patrycja Herod
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
High Rank ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Compensatory Damages

This article is the first comprehensive overview of the criminal regulations of the first Statute of Mazovia, which was announced by Prince Siemowit III of Masovia on April 27, 1377 in Sochaczew. The authoress examines 11 criminal laws, which cover more than half of the act. The article presents the legal and penal regulations concerning: the conditions of taking revenge, villainy (robbery and persistent thievery), broadly defined rape on a person, the amount of were-gild for murdering a Włodyka (a representative of lower knighthood) and a well-to-do peasant, complicity, the defamation of people of high rank (i. e. the rebuke of nobility), the requirements on which one can exonerate themselves in court, as well as the amount of compensatory damages for beating or wounding a well-to-do peasant. While discussing specific legal articles, the author explains the basic notions concerning mazovian criminal law both substantive and procedural, in particular: the penalty of proscription, a vendetta, the penalty of infamy, the rebuke of nobility, exoneration, were-gild and punitive damages. At the same time, the article presents the issue of the death penalty and confiscation of one’s property, which were the most severe penalties for convicted criminals. The article concludes with the summary of the conducted research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document