Missouri appellate court affirms $149 million punitive damages award

The Missouri Court of Appeals issued this opinion on December 3 upholding a $149 million punitive damages award in a case involving a compensatory damages award of $28 million.

The case involved a hotel security guard who used a master key to enter the room of a hotel guest and sexually assault her. The plaintiff sued Hyatt for negligent hiring, supervision, and training.

On appeal Hyatt argued that the record was insufficient to support any award of punitive damages. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the punitive damages were justified by Hyatt’s failure to enforce its own policies, and by its failure to cooperate with the police investigation of the assault.

Hyatt seemingly would have had a strong argument that the amount of the award is excessive, in light of the Supreme Court caselaw stating that punitive damages generally should not exceed the amount of compensatory damages in case involving “substantial” compensatory damages, but the opinion does not indicate that Hyatt raised that issue. Perhaps Hyatt’s counsel had reason to believe this particular court would not be receptive to that argument.

 

Connecticut appellate court reverses $150 million in punitive damages against Alex Jones, but otherwise affirms massive judgment

A Connecticut intermediate appellate reversed a $150 million punitive damages award against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, but otherwise affirmed a judgment that exceeds $1 billion ($965 million in compensatory damages and $321.7 million in attorney’s fees).

The plaintiffs in the case are relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting. They sued Jones for defamation, based on his false claims that the school shooting was a hoax and that the victims’ family members were paid actors hired as part of a gun-control conspiracy.

The trial court awarded $150 million in punitive damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but the appellate court reversed that award on the ground that the plaintiffs’ injuries came from false language, rather than speech related to advertising or marketing, as required under the Act.

Jones also owes millions in a separate Texas state court proceeding brought by the parents of a child killed at Sandy Hook. He has declared bankruptcy and satirical news source The Onion was the winning bidder for his website, Infowars, in a bankruptcy auction.

California jury awards $25M in punitive damages against Wal-Mart in defamation case

Bloomberg Law reports that a jury in San Bernardino County has awarded $9.7 in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to a former Wal-Mart truck driver, based on his claims that the company defamed him when it fired him. The story reports that the plaintiff was receiving workers’ compensation for a workplace injury and was reportedly unable to drive for work, but was observed on surveillance video driving a personal vehicle.

Philadelphia jury awards $75 million in punitive damages in latest Roundup verdict

Reuters reports that a jury in Philadelphia has awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages to a man who claims he developed cancer from using the weedkiller Roundup.

The article contains some remarkable data about the history of this litigation: the defendants has prevailed in 14 of the 20 Roundup cases that have gone to trial, but the few verdicts that have gone the plaintiffs’ way have been colossal, including one for $1.56 billion and one for $2.25 billion.

Bayer, who is the defendant in these cases because it acquired Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in 2018, maintains its position that “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies . . . worldwide” shows that Roundup is safe. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s lawyers accuse Bayer of “act[ing] with reckless indifference to people’s safety.”

This litigation could come to an end if Bayer can persuade the Supreme Court to weigh in and adopt the view taken by the Third Circuit, which held that federal law preempts state-law claims about the adequacy of the Roundup’s labelling.

Orange County jury awards $53.6 million in punitive damages against toymaker MGA

Forbes reports that a federal jury in Orange County has awarded $53.6 million in punitive damages, on top of $17.8 million in compensatory damages, in a lawsuit alleging that toymaker MGA’s “O.M.G.” line of dolls violated the intellectual property rights of music group OMG Girlz.

If this award were to survive posttrial and appellate review, it would be larger than all but two awards that have survived appellate review in the California court system.

Court of Appeal affirms $15 million punitive damages award against senior care facility (Mosley v. Pacifica Bakersfield)

In this unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal (Fifth District) affirmed a $15 million punitive damages award and held that the defendant forfeited some of its arguments by failing to respond to the plaintiff’s demands for financial information.

The underlying facts of the case involve a patient in a memory care facility. A staffer at the facility escorted the patient to the dining area and discovered about 90 minutes later that the patient was missing from the facility. He was found lying outside the facility with injuries to knees and elbow. He ultimately underwent multiple surgeries for his injuries and died about five months after the incident.

His heirs sued the facility for negligence and elder abuse and obtained a jury verdict for $149,000 in economic damages, $8 million in noneconomic damages, and $15 million in punitive damages. Half of the noneconomic damages—$4 million—represented the decedent’s own pain and suffering. The trial court reduced that amount to $250,000 under the applicable MICRA cap, Civil Code section 3333.2, subdivision (b).

The defendant appealed and argued, among other things, that the punitive damages award should be vacated because the plaintiffs failed to introduce meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition, as required under California law. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that the defendant forfeited its right to raise this issue because the defendant failed to respond adequately to the plaintiff’s request for financial information.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff served two notices on the defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, requesting that a corporate representative appear at trial and produce financial records. The defendant objected to the first notice but did not object to the second. If the defendant had objected, then the defendant would have been excused from complying with the notice unless the plaintiff filed a motion to compel and obtained a court order for the production of the records. But because the defendant failed to object, the defendant was obligated to produce the documents at trial and, having failed to make an adequate production, forfeited its right to complain that the financial condition evidence was insufficient, or that the award was excessive in relation to the evidence presented.

The defendant also argued that the $15 million award was excessive. The defendant argued that the award was 37.6 times greater than the compensatory damages as reduced by the trial court. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument too, concluding that the award should be compared to the jury’s verdict, not to the net compensatory damages award after application of the MICRA cap, because the jury’s award represented the actual harm caused by the defendant’s conduct, even if some of that harm is legally noncompensable.

New York jury awards $240 million in punitive damages against Harley-Davidson

Law 360 reports (subscription required) that a jury in Livingston County New York awarded $287 million in damages, including $240 million in punitive damages, for injuries sustained in the crash of a Harley-Davidson “trike.”

The plaintiffs alleged that the Tri Glide Ultra motorcycle contained a faulty software system that caused the motorcycle to swerve across the road an into an embankment, injuring the driver and killing his passenger. The article reports that Harley-Davison plans to appeal.

Catching up on unpublished 2024 California Court of Appeal decisions

I’ve been catching up on some unpublished punitive damages opinions that were issued earlier this year. Here’s a brief rundown:

Matthes v. Rodgers (May 13, 2024, Second District, Division Four):

Upholding $1.95 million in punitive damages; defendant failed to respond to subpoenas requesting financial information, and therefore waived its right to complain that trial court erred when it modified the standard CACI instructions to delete the language telling the jury to consider the defendant’s ability to pay

Soria v. Compass Group (April 16, 2024, Second District, Division Two):

Holding that trial court properly granted nonsuit on punitive damages because plaintiff failed to present evidence that two employees of defendant hospital were managing agents

Medel v. Oceanic Companies (February 22, 2024, Fourth District, Division One):

Holding that trial court properly reduced $2 million and $1 million punitive damages awards to $652,000 and $326,000 (ratios of two-to-one and one-to-one) for conduct that was “moderately to highly reprehensible”

Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (January 2, 2024, Second District, Division Two)

Declining to further reduce punitive damages that trial court cut from $150 million to $18.5 million (3.5-to-one ratio) in retaliation case involving “moderately reprehensible” conduct

Las Vegas jury awards $3 billion in punitive damages against maker of bottled water

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that a jury in Las Vegas has awarded $98 million in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against Real Water, a defunct and bankrupt bottled water company.  The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered extreme nausea and fatigue as the result of drinking bottled water that was contaminated with a toxic chemical.

The punitive damages are likely to be reduced in posttrial motions or on appeal because the award seems to bear no relation to the harm claimed by the plaintiffs. In any event, it is highly doubtful that the bankrupt defendant could pay even a fraction of the award. But awards like this are highly beneficial to plaintiffs’ lawyers, as they help make multi-billion punitive damages awards seem like a normal and accepted result of our justice system.

A technological blog we write about technological updates, what is and how to do. Please visit https://booleandreams.com. You will get a lot of information technological updates there.For Bengali blog please visit https://aloasbei.com.Turn your problem into a super solution with the help of us. Please visit https://bitlabtech.com.Thought-provoking, character-driven literary fiction.Descriptive and engaging nonfiction.Visit https://mgcobb.com