Verdicts & Settlements
Calif. Court Reconsiders But Doesn’t Change Ford Punitives Verdict
Posted Mar 11, 2008, 12:49 pm CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A California appeals court is standing its ground and refusing to change an earlier ruling requiring Ford Motor Co. to pay $82.6 million in a rollover case.
The U.S. Supreme Court had asked the California court to reconsider in light of its ruling in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the Recorder reports. The February 2007 Supreme Court decision held that jurors could not base a punitive damages award on harm to nonparties, but they could take third-party harm into account when determining the reprehensibility of a defendant’s conduct.
The San Diego's 4th District Court of Appeal said in a “somewhat surprising” ruling on Monday that there was no risk that jurors had punished Ford for harm to third parties, based on the evidence and arguments presented at trial, the Recorder story says. "Rather, counsel was discussing the repeated nature of Ford's actions in arguing the reprehensibility of Ford's conduct,” the opinion (PDF) said. “That argument was entirely proper and did not create a 'significant risk' the jury would punish Ford for injuries to third parties."
The plaintiff in the Ford case, Benetta Buell-Wilson, was paralyzed when she swerved to avoid hitting a metal object and her Ford Explorer rolled over. A jury originally awarded her almost $369 million, but the California appeals courts cut the award to $82.6 million, including $55 million in punitives.
Related Stories
- Mervyn’s Sues Its Ex-Owners Over ‘Fraudulent Transfer’ of Stores
Sep 4, 2008, 08:24 pm CDT - Sunglasses Issue Obscures Case Outcome
Sep 4, 2008, 04:54 pm CDT - Arnstein Plans Major Growth in Florida
Sep 4, 2008, 04:31 pm CDT - Abramoff Gets 4 Years, After Prosecution Urges Leniency
Sep 4, 2008, 03:52 pm CDT
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Paul Nidich - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 11 hours, 49 minutes ago
The purpose of punitive damages is to punish the tortfeasor, not reward the injured party. I suggest that states consider creating a “punitive damage fund,” into which all awards of punitive damages would go. These funds could then be used in various ways, but all uses should be consistent with preventing the kind of activity that led to the award in some way.
The attorney for the plaintiff would then be acting as a private attorney general for the state. As such, fees in the range of 15 - 20% would more than compensate the attorney for this part of the case.