St. Thomas Law Review
First Page
33
Document Type
Article
Abstract
What would a football game be without the first down marker? Perhaps it would result in confusion, frustration and ultimately an arbitrary decision by a referee to determine what is and what is not a first down. In the same vein as a football game played without first down markers, a court attempting to impose punitive damages without clear and distinguished markers will likely render inconsistent and perhaps even unfair decisions. The United States Supreme Court in State Farm v. Campbell' ignored an opportunity to establish a bright-line test for lower courts to confidently impose punitive damages without running afoul of due process. As a result of the decision in State Farm, lower courts were provided only marginally enhanced clarity for imposing punitive damages than were previously discussed at length in BMW v. Gore. Punitive damage limitation has been discussed and debated at length for many years. However, only recently has the Supreme Court entered the arena with a Constitutional game face. By establishing guideposts in Gore and subsequently addressing the guideposts again in State Farm, the Court, without clarifying the essential elements of an effective punitive damage limiting jury instruction or limiting statute, basically forces lower courts and legislatures to play a guessing game as to what may or may not fall within due process. A potential solution to the elusive bright line due process test is to create a model punitive damage limiting statute that combines intelligible guidelines present in some states statutes while attempting to stay within the parameters of the Constitutional mile markers the Supreme Court has set forth.
Recommended Citation
Christopher Price,
MPDLS Is Not a Disease: A Proposition for a Model Punitive Damage Limiting Statute in Light of the Constitutional Guideposts from BMW and State Farm,
17
St. Thomas L. Rev.
33
(2004).
Available at:
https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol17/iss1/3