FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W43989118> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W43989118 startingPage "454" @default.
• W43989118 abstract "DEBATE ABOUT the various issues arising from the award of punitive damages, particularly in the context of mass tort and complex litigation, has raged for decades in courtrooms, classrooms, and the media. Faced with a class action lawsuit, or a multitude of lawsuits from hundreds to thousands of plaintiffs seeking compensatory and punitive damages, courts and counsel struggle to handle the issues surrounding punitive awards in the most economic and efficient manner that meets constitutional muster. For defendants in these lawsuits, the potential of being subjected to multiple punitive damage awards in different amounts--and the economic uncertainty that necessarily follows--presents an especially vexing situation. Defendants in mass tort, multi-district, and class action litigation often face lawsuits from numerous plaintiffs, each of whom is entitled to assert a claim for and potentially obtain an individual award of punitive damages for a single, allegedly egregious act. (1) While these multiple punitive awards may range from de minimus to an award that exceeds constitutional boundaries, in the aggregate, the cost to a defendant can be catastrophic, ultimately bankrupting a defendant and leaving future plaintiffs without recourse for their actual damages. One solution to this problem may be the punitive damage multiplier. Rather than awarding a single punitive damage award in each case, under the multiplier approach, a jury sets a mathematical relationship between punitive and compensatory damages by establishing a dollar-for-dollar ratio after hearing evidence of the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, including consideration of the harm to nonparties. (2) Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has made numerous attempts to provide more clarity to the calculation of punitive damage awards. Significantly, the Supreme Court suggested in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker that a multiplier approach may be the best way to decrease the unpredictability of punitive damage awards. (3) Although the idea of a punitive damage multiplier has not yet been widely recognized, various courts and commentators have considered the use of a multiplier to increase the efficiency of complex litigation. This article examines the possibility of having juries use a punitive damage multiplier to determine punitive damages in class action or mass tort litigation, paying particular attention to the advantages and disadvantages of its use. In addition, this article will also analyze the context in which courts have utilized a multiplier approach and the common arguments presented by parties in favor of and opposed to punitive damage multipliers. I. Recent U.S. Supreme Court Punitive Damage Jurisprudence The most often cited rationale underlying punitive damage awards is the public function they serve: to punish and deter behavior society deems objectionable, similar to the function of criminal punishments. (4) In order to achieve this goal, however, courts must provide for some predictability in punitive awards. (5) Research on punitive damage awards has revealed that a major source of unpredictability in how juries decide punitive damage awards comes from the fact that people do not know how to 'translate' their moral judgments into dollar amounts. (6) In response, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to provide guidance in calculating a punitive award that both meets the requirements of Due Process and provides the necessary predictability for the award to fairly and adequately fulfill its function. In 2007, the Supreme Court considered the Constitution's Due Process limitations with respect to awarding punitive damages in Phillip Morris U.S.A. v. Williams. (7) In Phillip Morris, the Court concluded that the Due Process Clause forbids a state from awarding punitive damages to punish a defendant for injuries to nonparties because such awards threaten punishment for conduct against which the defendant has no opportunity to defend. …" @default.
• W43989118 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W43989118 creator A5011311908 @default.
• W43989118 creator A5020144050 @default.
• W43989118 date "2012-10-01" @default.
• W43989118 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W43989118 title "Predictability in Punitive Damages: Considering the Use of Punitive Damage Multipliers" @default.
• W43989118 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W43989118 type Work @default.
• W43989118 sameAs 43989118 @default.
• W43989118 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W43989118 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W43989118 hasAuthorship W43989118A5011311908 @default.
• W43989118 hasAuthorship W43989118A5020144050 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C2776687834 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C2778803647 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C2779140086 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C57017900 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W43989118 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C11413529 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C17744445 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C199539241 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C200635333 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C2776119841 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C2776687834 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C2777834853 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C2778272461 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C2778803647 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C2779140086 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C41008148 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C48103436 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C57017900 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C83645499 @default.
• W43989118 hasConceptScore W43989118C97460637 @default.
• W43989118 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W43989118 hasLocation W439891181 @default.
• W43989118 hasOpenAccess W43989118 @default.
• W43989118 hasPrimaryLocation W439891181 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W1498711809 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W1507572069 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W1562899507 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W1785557080 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W219687651 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W2254845617 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W2257180274 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W2258439464 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W2267251576 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W227076592 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W238348018 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W251359989 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W3121190222 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W3124928706 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W3124987469 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W3125441548 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W3125557622 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W335494985 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W391992378 @default.
• W43989118 hasRelatedWork W64221148 @default.
• W43989118 hasVolume "79" @default.
• W43989118 isParatext "false" @default.
• W43989118 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W43989118 magId "43989118" @default.
• W43989118 workType "article" @default.