Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1625065
 
 

Footnotes (101)



 


 



Punitive Damages after Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker: The Quest for Predictability and the Role of Juries


Alexandra B. Klass


University of Minnesota Law School


University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 7, p. 182, 2009
Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-35

Abstract:     
This Symposium Essay considers the impact of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker on the ability of juries to award punitive damages in a manner that comports with the law. In that case, the Court continued its two-decade crusade to place federal limits on punitive damages awards. The Exxon case was a federal maritime case arising out of the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska, resulting in arguably the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history. In its decision, the Court for the first time identified “unpredictability” as the fundamental problem with punitive damages today. It then set out to make those damages more predictable by reaffirming the need for very low ratios, in this case 1:1, between punitive damages and compensatory damages. In this Essay, I argue that the Court’s quest for predictability has resulted in reviewing courts being forced to rely too heavily on the facts of other cases involving similar claims in order to determine if the punitive damages award in the case at bar is constitutional. Such a system is fraught with error and, more importantly, creates a situation where juries cannot possibly render punitive damages verdicts that meet due process requirements because the very evidence they need to assess predictability – the facts and damage awards in other cases – cannot be made available to them.

Part I provides a brief discussion of punitive damages generally and the Court’s recent effort to place federal constitutional limits on those damages. Part II discusses the Exxon case itself and highlights the Court’s focus on “unpredictability” as the fundamental problem with punitive damages. Part III shows how lower courts have applied the Exxon case. This Part reveals that even though courts recognize that the Exxon case is a federal maritime case rather than a substantive due process case, courts have embraced the call for predictable awards by ensuring punitive damages awards are in line (both as a matter of ratio and as an absolute dollar amount) with other similar cases. Part IV illustrates how the quest for predictability requires information on other similar cases that cannot be given to juries, and how the premium now placed on predictable damages awards makes it difficult, if not impossible, for juries to arrive at constitutional verdicts.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Keywords: punitive damages, due process, ratios, Exxon Valdez, oil spill, deterrence, predictability, retribution, juries

JEL Classification: K13, K14, K32, K41

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: June 15, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Klass, Alexandra B., Punitive Damages after Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker: The Quest for Predictability and the Role of Juries. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 7, p. 182, 2009; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-35. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1625065

Contact Information

Alexandra B. Klass (Contact Author)
University of Minnesota Law School ( email )
229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States
612-625-0155 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,245
Downloads: 154
Download Rank: 115,052
Footnotes:  101

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.328 seconds