ABA Litigation News has this article about whether plaintiffs in legal malpractice actions can seek lost punitive damages, i.e., the punitive damages they claim they would have been awarded if not for the lawyer’s malpractice. The California Supreme Court answered “no” to that question in Ferguson v. Lieff Cabraser, but the article notes that courts in other jurisdictions have disagreed.
-
Philadelphia jury awards $25 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that yesterday a jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed she suffered serious health complications after being implanted with Ethicon vaginal mesh. Johnson & Johnson is Ethicon’s parent company.
Johnson & Johnson has been battered with punitive damages awards in recent years. Juries have awarded punitive damages in other mesh cases, as well as in cases involving hip implants and talc products.
Related posts:
Johnson & Johnson hit for $80 million in punitive damages in New Jersey talc case
Johnson & Johnson hit for $25 million in punitive damages in Indiana
Los Angeles trial court tosses $417 million talc verdict
L.A. jury awards $347 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in talc case
Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation
Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict
Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case
-
Philadelphia jury awards $25 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that yesterday a jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed she suffered serious health complications after being implanted with Ethicon vaginal mesh. Johnson & Johnson is Ethicon’s parent company.
Johnson & Johnson has been battered with punitive damages awards in recent years. Juries have awarded punitive damages in other mesh cases, as well as in cases involving hip implants and talc products.
Related posts:
Johnson & Johnson hit for $80 million in punitive damages in New Jersey talc case
Johnson & Johnson hit for $25 million in punitive damages in Indiana
Los Angeles trial court tosses $417 million talc verdict
L.A. jury awards $347 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in talc case
Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation
Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict
Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case
-
Las Vegas jury awards $32.4 million in punitive damages against hospital
The Seymour Tribute reports on a Las Vegas jury verdict awarding $10.5 million in compensatory damages and $32.4 million in punitive damages against Centennial Hills Hospital. The plaintiffs claimed that the hospital caused the death of a 29-year-old woman by administering a drug in excess of the manufacturer’s recommended dose.
-
Las Vegas jury awards $32.4 million in punitive damages against hospital
The Seymour Tribute reports on a Las Vegas jury verdict awarding $10.5 million in compensatory damages and $32.4 million in punitive damages against Centennial Hills Hospital. The plaintiffs claimed that the hospital caused the death of a 29-year-old woman by administering a drug in excess of the manufacturer’s recommended dose.
-
“Dishwasher awarded $21M after being forced to work on Sundays”
WGN reports on a Miami verdict awarding $536,000 in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages against the Conrad hotel for firing a dishwasher who failed to report to work on Sundays.
The plaintiff argued that the hotel discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her religious practices, which preclude her from working on Sundays. As the story notes, however, the punitive damages will be capped at $300,000 (the maximum amount permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
-
“Dishwasher awarded $21M after being forced to work on Sundays”
WGN reports on a Miami verdict awarding $536,000 in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages against the Conrad hotel for firing a dishwasher who failed to report to work on Sundays.
The plaintiff argued that the hotel discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her religious practices, which preclude her from working on Sundays. As the story notes, however, the punitive damages will be capped at $300,000 (the maximum amount permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
-
“Sixth Circuit Rules that Cap on Punitive Damages is Unconstitutional”
The National Law Review reports on a recent Sixth Circuit opinion striking down a Tennessee statute that limited punitive damages to the greater of $500,000 or two times compensatory damages. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion holds that the Tennessee constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial on the amount of punitive damages, and that a cap on the amount is inconsistent with that right.
Courts around the country have reached different results on this issue. For example, a 2018 federal district court decision rejected the same argument under North Carolina law.
-
“Sixth Circuit Rules that Cap on Punitive Damages is Unconstitutional”
The National Law Review reports on a recent Sixth Circuit opinion striking down a Tennessee statute that limited punitive damages to the greater of $500,000 or two times compensatory damages. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion holds that the Tennessee constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial on the amount of punitive damages, and that a cap on the amount is inconsistent with that right.
Courts around the country have reached different results on this issue. For example, a 2018 federal district court decision rejected the same argument under North Carolina law.
-
Court of Appeal reduces punitive damages award from $1 million to $11,800 (Rinehart v. Bank Card Consultants)
This unpublished opinion holds that a $1 million punitive damages award is excessive in light of the defendant’s financial condition.
A jury found the defendant liable for wrongful termination and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The defendant appealed, arguing that the punitive damages award was excessive because it was disproportionate to the defendant’s ability to pay.
The Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three) agreed. The only evidence of the defendant’s financial condition showed an annual net income of $180,000 and a net worth of $86,000. The Court of Appeal said the punitive damages award was “clearly excessive” because it represented five times the defendant’s annual net income and more then 10 times its net worth. The court explained that an award of one month of net income, or 10 percent of net worth, “would approximate the maximum award that would pass muster.” Ten percent of net worth would be $8,600, and one month of net income would be $15,000, so the court averaged those two amounts and concluded that the maximum permissible award would be $11,800.
The Court of Appeal should have ended the proceedings by ordering the trial court to reduce the punitive damages to the maximum amount. (See Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co.) As some courts put it, the plaintiff should not get a “second bite at the apple” after having failed to present sufficient financial condition evidence to support the punitive damages award the first time around. (See Kelly v. Haag.) Here, however, the Court of Appeal did exactly that. It let the plaintiff choose between a new trial or a reduction of the punitive damages to $11,800.