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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions