BMW v. Gore case brief summary
Three guideposts in reviewing constitutionality of punitive damages:
- the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct
- Harm caused was physical as opposed to economic
- Conduct showed an indifference or disregard to health/safety of others
- Target of the conduct had a financial vulnerability
- Conduct involved repeated actions rather than isolated incident
- Harm due to intentional malice, trickery or deceit, rather than mere accident
- the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by P and the punitive damages award--multiplier
- the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases (Also see Souter in Exxon)
Support us by:
Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addition.
Checking out our store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com
No comments:
Post a Comment