United States: Punitive Damages In Mass Torts Cases: Outrageous And In Reckless Disregard Of Fairness

It was over 32 years ago that we graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. The three years in Hyde Park were a punishing experience. There was one class in particular when Prof. Richard Epstein used the Socratic method to pummel our intellect and ego. By the end of the exercise, we were a puddle of incoherence. The class was called Advanced Torts. It is a bit funny that we today practice a form of Advanced Torts, even though Prof. Epstein long ago exposed our idiocy in the field. But all is forgiven, if not quite forgotten, and we are grudgingly grateful for the hard lessons learned at his feet (from his vigorous kicking away at our preconceptions). One of the things that Epstein did in that class was rip into the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan decision. That case is usually thought of as one of the crown jewels of First Amendment jurisprudence, as it furnishes almost absolute protection to the press. Basically, newspapers and other press media can skate past libel liability, no matter how false their publications, unless the press published with "actual malice" – knowing the statement was false or acting in reckless disregard. Epstein's point was that while it was nice for the press that they would defend against most libel claims successfully, the state of mind inquiry was intrusive and complex, and the stakes involved, which could include punitive damages, were frighteningly high. Such uncertainty and expense are not in society's interest. It sounds like heresy, but a simple standard of falsity, plus a cap on damages, would probably result in better outcomes and would certainly cabin discovery madness.

It occurs to us that punitive damages in mass tort cases suffer from the same, ahem, defect. Punitive damages require jurors to read the minds of corporate defendants, looking for bad intent or reckless disregard. Conduct and documents that would otherwise be out of bounds for discovery and would never be paraded before the jury become fair game if punitive damages are available. Moreover, due process considerations be damned, courts seem to permit jurors to flip around punitive damage figures in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars as if they were nickels. There is no consistency to the process. One case might get halted by a judge who applies Daubert to preclude junk science, while another judge waves virtually the same case by and a jury socks the defendant with a $110 million verdict. Or perhaps you have heard of jurors who conclude that the product did no real harm to a plaintiff, but are still sufficiently miffed at the company to award punitive damages. It isn't right. It makes no sense. It probably won't survive judicial scrutiny. But the craziness happens. No wonder our system of civil litigation looks like jackpot justice. Pull the handle, watch wheels of inconsistent evidentiary rulings, inflammatory arguments, and jury lunacy spin, and see if the result is a shower of money. If one pull comes up empty, never mind, keep pulling. Whether or not you think the game is rigged, any rational defendant dragged into the courtroom casino knows it is a sucker's game. Better to pay a settlement and find the exit.

It turns out that we are hardly the only ones to rue the unfairness of punitive damages in mass torts. A recent paper from the Cornell Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series (No. 17-33) by Cornell Law Professor James A. Henderson, Jr., "The Impropriety of Punitive Damages in Mass Torts," dissects the issue nicely. Other academics (think of Kip Viscusi) have exposed the wrongheadedness of punitive damages in mass torts, but Patterson's paper is particularly compelling and timely. He shows that punitive damages in mass torts are capricious, unfair, and unpredictable. The joint justifications for punitive damages are retribution and deterrence. But the retribution for any limited case at issue loses all sense of scale, and there is zero evidence that mass tort punitive damages actually improve corporate conduct or make anyone safer. The problem is that the triggers for punitive damages, vague words such as "outrageous" that are meant to suggest "different levels of heinousness," are unclear to the point where jurors can do pretty much whatever they want. That latitude is especially pernicious in the context of mass torts, where aggregation of claims is not just procedural, but substantive. That is, the mass-ification of torts almost always prejudices the defendant by eroding defenses that would typically make the difference in a one-on-one case. For certain industries, or whenever the government is involved, the law cheerfully dispenses with such niceties as fault, reliance, and causation.

Patterson takes us through some of the newer, non-traditional mass torts, such as asbestos, tobacco, lead paint, firearms, and no-injury economic loss cases where corporate defendants have been stripped of procedural and substantive defenses. We've worked on a couple of these species of cases, and can vouch for the accuracy of Patterson's analysis. We're by no means asbestos lawyers, but we once handled a couple of asbestos cases as a favor to a client. We still occasionally bolt upright in the middle of the night, sweating from our memories of the asbestos docket call. The client never manufactured anything with asbestos, but some of its products were later taken by a downstream manufacturer that placed some asbestos into the product before unleashing the products upon the populace. The downstream manufacturer had shallow pockets, so the asbestos plaintiff lawyers added our client to the latest wave of defendants. We proved to the plaintiff lawyer that our client had nothing to do with the asbestos, and the plaintiff lawyer shrugged and named some ludicrous figure for us to settle and get out of the case. Sure – and then we'd be added to the asbestos sucker lists and face never-ending litigation. We wanted to file a motion, but the insanity of the asbestos litigation "program" was that no defense motions would be considered until trial was only 30 days away. Who wants to face that kind of brinksmanship? Have you ever heard of the abomination called "near beer"? Well, asbestos litigation is "near law." In fact, it is hardly law at all. Rather, it is a system of taxing an unloved industry.

Viewing corporate conduct with hindsight, and assuming that corporations know everything and dwell purely on the bottom line, jurors are quick to reach for the spanking paddle. That spanking means millions of dollars. Risk averse corporate managers, and insurers worried about bad faith liability for failing to settle within policy limits, more often than not succumb to settlement blackmail. The possibility of stratospheric punitive damages is simply a risk not worth taking.

Here are some other points that Patterson makes about punitive damages in mass tort cases:

  • Multiple successive punitive damages awards for the same alleged conduct are unfair to defendants. (Maybe you could tell the jury that your company was already punished by another jury – but do you really want to do that?)
  • Any retribution is typically suffered by innocent, powerless shareholders, not the faulty managers. Big surprise: expressing moral outrage toward corporations is unrealistic.
  • Punitive damages can deplete assets to the prejudice of later-filing plaintiffs.
  • Punitive damages are utterly unnecessary. Large compensatory awards are more predictable and internalize social costs better than random punitive awards.

To quote a historical figure who clearly and devilishly believed in punishment, what is to be done? Patterson mentions some marginal changes. One idea is to require more specific triggers for punitive damages, such as criminal conduct (with a higher burden of proof). Another idea, already existing in rare enlightened jurisdictions, is to let judges decide the amount of punitive damages. It is well past time for courts to limit evidence of harm to that which was actually visited upon the particular plaintiff. Patterson also discusses the possibility of limiting punitive damages to one case, which then creates a trust fund out of which later plaintiffs take their share. But all of this is nibbling around the edges. Patterson alludes to legislative changes, but seems pessimistic that our elected solons will ever risk displeasing a plaintiffs' bar that is clever and promiscuous when it comes to slinging cash contributions to their favorite candidates. That leaves the problem in the hands of judges, who will need to toss some troublesome precedents in the dustbin of history and start emphasizing the justice over the jackpot.

Patterson's paper is clearly written and well-argued, and replaces our crankiness with a surfeit of citations. It is well worth reading.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.