Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1025997
 
 

Footnotes (56)



 


 



Fairness Through Guidance: Jury Instruction on Punitive Damages After Philip Morris v. Williams


Neil Vidmar


Duke University - School of Law

Matthew W. Wolfe


Duke University - School of Law


Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, 2007
Duke Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 177

Abstract:     
Punitive damages present a significant issue in American law. Phillip Morris v. Williams - the United States Supreme Court's most recent foray into punitive damages litigation - has once again raised procedural and substantive due process matters regarding fairness to defendants and reawakened debate in this area. Proponents of punitive damages argue that the awarding of punitive damages protects the community from wanton or predatory acts - or other behavior that violates social norms - by sanctioning the defendant and sending a general message that the actions are reprehensible and will not be tolerated. Opponents argue that the punitive damage awards by juries have gotten out of hand, and that in addition to being unfair to defendants, they have the potential to put a company out of business or substantially hinder a company's viability. With so much at stake on both sides, and with the Supreme Court's frequent intervention in this arena, punitive damage doctrine is primed for clarity and guidance. The purpose of this Article is to provide this clarity and guidance by proposing model jury instructions on punitive damages in light of Phillip Morris and its immediate predecessors.

The Article proceeds in four parts. Part I introduces the Supreme Court's debate in Phillip Morris v. Williams, borrowing liberally from the Court's opinion to establish the current doctrine on punitive damage awards. Part II then analyzes the problem that drafters face in the wake of Phillip Morris in revising model jury instructions. Part III offers some criteria to solve this dilemma, including offering juries written instructions, detailing the Court's requirements, and defining fairness. Part IV presents a first take on what model jury instructions that meet these criteria might look like. In conclusion, we articulate the next steps in providing jurors with the guidance necessary to make informed and fair decisionmaking vis-à-vis punitive damage awards.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 19

Keywords: phillip morris v. williams, punitive damages, jury instructions

JEL Classification: K13, K19, K42, K41, K49

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 5, 2007 ; Last revised: December 14, 2007

Suggested Citation

Vidmar, Neil and Wolfe, Matthew W., Fairness Through Guidance: Jury Instruction on Punitive Damages After Philip Morris v. Williams. Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, 2007; Duke Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 177. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1025997

Contact Information

Neil Vidmar (Contact Author)
Duke University - School of Law ( email )
Box 90360
Duke School of Law
Durham, NC 27708
United States
919-613-7090 (Phone)
919-613-7231 (Fax)
Matthew W. Wolfe
Duke University - School of Law ( email )
Box 90360
Duke School of Law
Durham, NC 27708
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,717
Downloads: 249
Download Rank: 69,795
Footnotes:  56

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.281 seconds