California Punitives by Horvitz & Levy

  • Reggie Bush wins $7.5 million punitive damages award against Los Angeles Rams

    Law 360 reports (subscription required) that a jury in Missouri state court has awarded $4.95 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages to former NFL player Reggie Bush in a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Rams. 

    The suit stems from an injury that occurred in 2015 when the Rams were located in St. Louis.  Bush was returning a punt during the game, ran out of bounds, and slipped on a concrete surface beyond the edge of the field.  He missed the rest of the reason due to injury. 

    Bush’s legal team persuaded the Missouri court that this case is not governed by the terms of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement and that Bush is not limited to workers’ compensation remedies.  The case proceeded to trial as an ordinary slip-and-fall case.  The article does not explain the theory behind the punitive damages claim.

    If the punitive damages award survives post-trial and appellate review, half of the award will go to a tort victims’ compensation fund under Missouri’s split-recovery statute.

  • Reggie Bush wins $7.5 million punitive damages award against Los Angeles Rams

    Law 360 reports (subscription required) that a jury in Missouri state court has awarded $4.95 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages to former NFL player Reggie Bush in a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Rams.

    The suit stems from an injury that occurred in 2015 when the Rams were located in St. Louis.  Bush was returning a punt during the game, ran out of bounds, and slipped on a concrete surface beyond the edge of the field.  He missed the rest of the reason due to injury.

    Bush’s legal team persuaded the Missouri court that this case is not governed by the terms of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement and that Bush is not limited to workers’ compensation remedies.  The case proceeded to trial as an ordinary slip-and-fall case.  The article does not explain the theory behind the punitive damages claim.

    If the punitive damages award survives post-trial and appellate review, half of the award will go to a tort victims’ compensation fund under Missouri’s split-recovery statute.

  • Oregon jury awards $20 million in punitive damages against California landlord

    Oregon Live reports that a jury in Portland has awarded $295,000 in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages against a California landlord for failing to maintain an apartment complex in Portland.  The plaintiff is a man who claimed he fell through a rotting second-story walkway at the complex.

    Under Oregon’s split-recovery statute, 70 percent of the punitive damages award will go to the state if the award is upheld.  With a punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 68-to-1, the award will almost certainly be reduced.

  • Oregon jury awards $20 million in punitive damages against California landlord

    Oregon Live reports that a jury in Portland has awarded $295,000 in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages against a California landlord for failing to maintain an apartment complex in Portland.  The plaintiff is a man who claimed he fell through a rotting second-story walkway at the complex.

    Under Oregon’s split-recovery statute, 70 percent of the punitive damages award will go to the state if the award is upheld.  With a punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 68-to-1, the award will almost certainly be reduced.

  • Indiana trial judge refuses to apply cap on punitive damages; state Solicitor General asks Indiana Supreme Court to step in

    The Associated Press is reporting (via the Houston Chronicle) about a case involving the constitutionality of Indiana’s $50,000 cap on punitive damages.  A jury awarded $150,000 in punitive damages to a plaintiff who alleged he was molested by his uncle, a Catholic priest.  The trial court rejected the defendant’s request to reduce the award to $50,000, reasoning that the cap violates the separation of powers doctrine.  The judge also refused to apply Indiana’s split-recovery statute, which allows the state to collect 75 percent of every punitive damages award. That got the attention of Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, who has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for review.

    By our count 30 states currently have statutory caps on punitive damages.  In a few other states (most recently Arkansas), state courts have held such caps unconstitutional.  

  • Oregon Supreme Court rules against Philip Morris (again)

    Believe it or not, the Williams case is still going.  For anyone who missed it, Williams is the case in which an Oregon jury awarded $821,500 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages.  The case bounced around in the appellate courts for years; the Oregon Supreme Court kept ruling against Philip Morris and the U.S. Supreme Court kept granting certiorari.  On the third trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, certiorari was dismissed after oral argument, leaving the judgment intact.

    Philip Morris paid the plaintiffs in 2009.  That payment included 40 percent of the punitive damages award.  The plaintiffs only got 40 percent because Oregon has a split recovery statute that requires the defendant to pay 60 percent of any punitive damages award to the state (as discussed here.)

    Philip Morris argued that it shouldn’t have to pay the state in this case because Oregon gave up its right to collect further punitive damages from Philip Morris in 1998, when Oregon signed on to a master settlement between the states and the tobacco companies.  Philip Morris won that argument in the intermediate appellate court but, as reported by the Associated Press, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed and ordered Philip Morris to pay Oregon it’s 60 percent share of the $79.5 million punitive damages award.

    As a result of this decision and the California Supreme Court’s denial of review in Bullock, Philip Morris’s parent Altria Group Inc. will record a $119 million fourth-quarter charge, per this report in today’s Wall Street Journal.

  • Oregon Supreme Court decides certified question from Ninth Circuit, limits Oregon’s power to collect a share of punitive damages verdicts

    The Oregon Supreme Court has answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit regarding Oregon’s rights under a statute that gives the state the right to recover 60 percent of any punitive damages award.

    In this case, Patton v. Target, a jury awarded $900,000 in punitive damages. After the verdict, but before the district court entered judgment, the parties settled and jointly moved for a judgment dismissing the case. The motion did not disclose the amount of the settlement and did not provide for any payment to the state. The state intervened, arguing that it had a vested interest in its share of the punitive damages award and that the parties could not settle without its consent. The district court (Judge Brown of the District of Oregon) allowed the state to intervene but ultimately granted the parties’ motion for dismissal. The state appealed.

    On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that the split-recovery statute is ambiguous with respect to the state’s ability to block this kind of settlement. The statute provides that the state becomes a “judgment creditor” upon rendition of a punitive damages verdict, which doesn’t really make any sense because ordinarily there can be no judgment creditor without an actual judgment. The statute doesn’t explain what rights the state has as a judgment creditor before judgment has been entered. Rather than interpreting the statute itself, the Ninth Circuit asked the Oregon Supreme Court to address the following question:

    When a jury has returned a verdict that includes an award of punitive damages under Oregon law, is the State of Oregon’s consent necessary before a court may enter a judgment giving effect to any settlement between the parties that would result in a reduction or elimination of the punitive damages to which the State would otherwise be entitled under Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.735?

    The Oregon Supreme Court answered the question in this opinion. The court holds that the state has no right to collect any portion of a punitive damages verdict before judgment has been entered. The statutory language purporting to give the state “judgment creditor” status before entry of judgment is meaningless and unenforceable. Accordingly, the parties are free to reach a settlement without the state’s consent, and without giving the state any share of the settlement.

    The court’s analysis seems correct to me. It also seems to guarantee that Oregon will collect little, if anything, under this statute. When a jury returns a punitive damages award, both parties will have an incentive to settle the case in order to prevent the state from collecting its share. Let’s hope the state isn’t counting on this statute to provide any meaningful contribution to the state budget.

    UPDATE (8/4/11 – LP): The Oregon Law Review has published a student comment on this topic, “Punitive Damages: The Controversy Continues.”

    Related posts:

    Oregon Supreme Court Accepts Certified Question on Split-Recovery Statute

    Patton v. Target Corp.: Ninth Circuit Certifies Punitive Damages Question to Oregon Supreme Court

  • Should Punitive Damages Go to the Plaintiff? To the State? To Charity?

    Yesterday, one of the members of Straight Dope started a message-board debate about the proper recipient of a punitive damages award. It’s worth a read if you want to see what some thoughtful non-lawyers think about punitive damages policies.

  • Oregon Supreme Court Accepts Certified Question on Split-Recovery Statute

    In a previous post we reported that the Ninth Circuit had certified the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court:

    When a jury has returned a verdict that includes an award of punitive damages
    under Oregon law, is the State of Oregon’s consent necessary before a court may
    enter a judgment giving effect to any settlement between the parties that would
    result in a reduction or elimination of the punitive damages to which the State
    would otherwise be entitled under Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.735?

    As expected, the Oregon Supreme Court has accepted the question.

  • Patton v. Target Corp.: Ninth Circuit Certifies Punitive Damages Question to Oregon Supreme Court

    A Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Judges Pregerson, Rymer, and Tashima issued this published order today, certifying a question to the Oregon Supreme Court.

    The dispute in this case centers around Oregon’s split-recovery statute (OR REV. STAT. section 13.735), which provides that the state of Oregon is entitled to 60 percent of any punitive damages award rendered under Oregon law. The statute applies to punitive damages cases decided under Oregon law in federal court.

    The statute gives parties a strong incentive to settle whenever punitive damages are awarded. Settlement benefits both parties because the plaintiff can obtain more, and the defendant can pay less, by cutting the state out of the deal. Or at least the parties here thought they could achieve that result. The state had other ideas.

    The jury in this case awarded roughly $85,000 in compensatory damages and $900,000 in punitive damages. After the verdict, but before the district court entered judgment, the parties settled and jointly moved for a judgment dismissing the case. The motion did not disclose the amount of the settlement and did not provide for any payment to the state. The state intervened, arguing that it had a vested interest in its share of the punitive damages award and that the parties could not settle without its consent. The district court (Judge Brown of the District of Oregon) allowed the state to intervene but ultimately granted the parties’ motion. The state appealed.

    On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that the split-recovery statute is ambiguous with respect to the state’s ability to block this kind of settlement. The statute provides that the state becomes a “judgment creditor” upon rendition of a punitive damages verdict, which doesn’t really make any sense because ordinarily there can be no judgment creditor without an actual judgment. The statute doesn’t explain what rights the state has as a judgment creditor before judgment has been entered. Rather than interpreting the statute itself, the Ninth Circuit has certified the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court:

    When a jury has returned a verdict that includes an award of punitive damages under Oregon law, is the State of Oregon’s consent necessary before a court may enter a judgment giving effect to any settlement between the parties that would result in a reduction or elimination of the punitive damages to which the State would otherwise be entitled under Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.735?

    The Oregon Supreme Court is almost certain to accept this issue. As we noted in a previous post, this same issue was pending before the Oregon Supreme Court in another case, but the court never reached the issue because the state decided to settle its claim for a share of the punitive damages award.

    Related posts:

    Oregon Drops Punitive Damages Claim in Order to Save Jobs

    Man v. Freightliner—Oregon Court of Appeals Allows State to Pursue a Share of $350 Million Punitive Damages Verdict After Parties Settle