California juries are in a giving mood when it comes to punitive damages lately.  On top of last week’s mega-verdict against Ford, a jury in L.A awarded $65 million in punitive damages yesterday against the Encino-Tarzana Regional Medical Center, according to this report in the Contra Costa Times.  The plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by a male nursing assistant at the hospital.

The compensatory damages award is $2.36 million, resulting a punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio of roughly 27.5 to one, which will be very difficult for the plaintiff to defend in post-trial motions and on appeal.  Not surprisingly, the article says the hospital is already planning to appeal.

I’m a little late in reporting this story.  The Sacramento Bee reported last week that a jury in San Francisco awarded $73 million in damages against Ford, including $50 million in punitive damages, in a lawsuit arising from a fatal accident involving an Econoline van.  The plaintiffs accused Ford of despicable conduct in failing to notify consumers of a tire recall notice from Goodyear. Ford took the position that the deaths would not have occurred if the plaintiffs had been wearing their seat belts.

The Washington Legal Foundation has published a Legal Backgrounder attacking a recent pro-plaintiff report on punitive damages.  The WLF report, authored by Victor Schwartz and Cary Silverman at the Shook Hardy firm, takes aim at a white paper released earlier this year by the Center on Justice & Democracy.

The WLF report makes some of the same points we made in our post about the white paper, including the observation that the white paper, despite claiming that limits on punitive damages are bad for society, offers no actual evidence that society is worse off in the majority of states that have now adopted caps or other limitations on punitive damages.

We blogged last year about a whopping $500 million punitive damages award out of state court in Las Vegas, based on allegations that the manufacturers and suppliers of the anesthetic Propofol acted with malice by supplying the drug in vials larger than necessary for single use, thereby tempting healthcare providers to reuse the vials.  That case is currently pending before the Nevada Supreme Court. 

Bloomberg now reports that another Vegas jury has awarded an additional $162 million in another lawsuit based on the same allegations.  And stay tuned, because a separate jury in the same courthouse has just awarded $14 million in compensatory damages in a similar case, and will consider punitive damages later this week.  (The defendants in these cases are Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc., Baxter Healthcare Corp., and McKesson Corp.)

UPDATE (10/13/11):  Bloomberg reports that jury #3 has awarded another $90 million in punitive damages.  So the defendants are looking at a combined $752 million in punitive damages in these three cases.

We previously reported on the appellate decision that allowed a plaintiff to proceed with a punitive damages claim against Johnson & Johnson for allegedly failing to provide sufficiently specific warnings for its pain reliever Motrin, and allegedly withholding information about Motrin from the FDA.  As we noted in May, the California Supreme Court denied Johnson & Johnson’s petition for review (and our request for depublication.)

Today’s Daily Journal (subscription required) reports that, after a six-and-a-half week trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $48.2 million in damages, including $15.6 million in punitive damages.

We’ve noted in prior posts that California appellate courts have split on the question of what to do about a punitive damages award when the court determines that the compensatory damages must be reduced.  Traditionally, courts would order a reduction of the punitive damages, or at least a new trial, to account for the change in the compensatories.  But more recently we’ve seen some courts simply affirming the punitive damages without regard to the change in the compensatories (and therefore without regard to the change in the punitive-to-compensatory ratio).  This unpublished opinion from the Second Appellate District, Division Seven, falls into that category.  The court orders the trial court to reevaluate the amount of compensatory damages, but affirms an award of $50,000 in punitive damages without even knowing what the final compensatory amount will be.

This case isn’t as extreme as Behr v. Redmond, where the Court of Appeal reduced the compensatory damages from $4 million to $1.6 but left a $2.8 million punitive damages award undisturbed.   Unfortunately, when the defendant in Behr petitioned for review to the California Supreme Court, he didn’t get a single vote.  Perhaps the Supreme Court didn’t think that case was the right vehicle to settle this issue, but will take up the issue in a future case.  I hope so, because the lower courts are all over the map on this issue and could use some guidance.

Reuters reports that film producer Jon Peters has been hit with a verdict for $822,000 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages (about a 3:1 ratio) in a case involving claims of sexual harrassment and hostile work environment.

Given that the compensatory damages are “substantial” by most courts’ definition (but see the recent Bullock appellate court decision, discussed here), and given that this case does not appear to involve physical injury, it will be interesting to see whether the punitive damages (if found to be supported by clear and convincing evidence of malice) will be cut on postrial motions or on appeal to a 1:1 ratio, on excessiveness grounds.

Related posts:

$1.16 punitive damages verdict returned against Walgreens: will 13:1 ratio stick? [describing recent Calfornia punitive damages verdict in an employment tort case]

Thomas v. iStar Financial, Inc.: $1.6 million punitive damages award in retaliatory discharge case is excessive [discussing appellate opinion that affirmed a trial court order reducing the $1.6 million punitive award to $190,000 (less than a 1:1 ratio)];

Sex and punitive damages [referencing recent New Jersey appellate court ruling on punitive damages in a sexual harrassment case]

$18 million punitive damages award (on top of $18.7 million compensatory award): A Florida jury was not pleased with the behavior of a suspended doctor (James Scott Pendergraft IV), whose clinic reportedly mishandled the medical services provided to patient who sought an abortion, but who ended up giving birth to a severely disabled child. The Orlando Sentinel reports that the trial judge last week denied posttrial motions challenging the July 2011 verdict.

$80 million punitive award (on top of $11.5 million compensatory award): According to a plaintiffs’ firm press release, a West Virginia jury found that the defendant nursing home was responsible for the dehydration death of one of its patients. An appeal is apparently in the works. The case is Douglas v. Manor Care Inc.

Honorable mention — punitive damages anticipated after jury awarded $2.287 compensatory damages: the Pennsylvania Record says that, after a three week trial in a case titled Williams vs. Willow Terrace et al., a jury found nursing home defendants were responsible for the poor care of a patient who developed pressure ulcers and ultimately died from them.

We recently mentioned a pending case in which a Missouri woman sued her mom (Alberta Comstock) for wrongful death after the mom allegedly shot her ex-husband (the plaintiff’s adoptive father). The civil jury (no criminal charges have ever been filed) found no compensatory damages were owed, but awarded $125,000 in punitive damages.

According to various news reports (e.g., Judge Tosses Judgment in Springfield Man’s Death), the trial judge voided the judgment as being “so inconsistent as to be self-destructive.” The judge reportedly rejected the plaintiff’s request to add nominal damages to the judgment in order to support the punitive award, which the judge found he had no authority to do. The judge also rejected plaintiff’s request for a new trial because her counsel failed to seek appropriate curative measures while the jury was still empaneled. The judge reasoned, “This Court does not have the latitude to grant her a new trial as a result of the inconsistent verdict,” and explained his view the plaintiff’s attorney should have recognized the inconsistent verdict and asked the judge “to instruct the jury to award . . . nominal damages.”

For more on the topic of punitive damages in the context of nominal or nonexistent compensatory damages, see our prior post here.

The Fresno Bee has reported that a jury last Friday awarded $88,000 in compensatory damages and $1.16 million in punitive damages to pharmacist Sami Mitri, who said Walgreen fired him in retaliation for reporting Medicare fraud. The case (no. 1:10-cv-00538-AWI -SKO) was brought in federal court under a whistleblower statute.

Five-figure and low six-figure compensatory damages awards have, in some cases, been found to be substantial enough to trigger a presumption that a single-digit ratio between compensatory and punitive damages is the most that can withstand a due process challenge for excessiveness. (See, e.g., the recent case survey discussed here.) The Walgreen award represents a double-digit ratio of more than 13:1. But Walgreen Co. is a pretty big company (the largest drug store company in the U.S.). Under the analysis in the recent Bullock v. Philip Morris opinion (discussed here), might an appellate court find a departure from the single-digit presumptive limit is warranted? Or might a court reviewing the award in this case hew to the U.S. Supreme Court’s statement that “The wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award”? (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, 427 [123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585].)