After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?
Anthony J. Sebok
Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008
Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237
This short essay was written for a symposium on The Future of Punitive Damages held at the Charleston School of Law in 2007. I argue that the ratio rule (that punitive damages that exceed a single digit ratio presumptively violate the Due Process Clause), introduced by the Supreme Court in Campbell, is unlikely to survive. I argue this for three reasons. First, many lower courts have found ways to conceal punitive damages awards that impose, in reality, ratios in the double-digits. Second, the refusal of the Court to reverse the plaintiffs punitive damages award in Williams under the ratio rule - given that it was 98 times the compensatory award - suggests that there are members of the Court who may not want to stand behind the rule. Third, the rule represents a mistaken critique of punitive damages.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 11Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 9, 2008 ; Last revised: September 27, 2008
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.687 seconds