After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?

Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008

Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237

11 Pages Posted: 9 May 2008 Last revised: 27 Sep 2008

Anthony J. Sebok

Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

Sebok, Anthony J., After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?. Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008; Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1131387

Anthony J. Sebok (Contact Author)

Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )

55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
86
Rank
242,859
Abstract Views
854