ABA Litigation News has this article about whether plaintiffs in legal malpractice actions can seek lost punitive damages, i.e., the punitive damages they claim they would have been awarded if not for the lawyer’s malpractice. The California Supreme Court answered “no” to that question in Ferguson v. Lieff Cabraser, but the article notes that courts in other jurisdictions have disagreed.
-
“Courts split on Punitive Damages Recovery in Legal Malpractice Cases”
ABA Litigation News has this article about whether plaintiffs in legal malpractice actions can seek lost punitive damages, i.e., the punitive damages they claim they would have been awarded if not for the lawyer’s malpractice. The California Supreme Court answered “no” to that question in Ferguson v. Lieff Cabraser, but the article notes that courts in other jurisdictions have disagreed.
-
Philadelphia jury awards $25 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that yesterday a jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed she suffered serious health complications after being implanted with Ethicon vaginal mesh. Johnson & Johnson is Ethicon’s parent company.
Johnson & Johnson has been battered with punitive damages awards in recent years. Juries have awarded punitive damages in other mesh cases, as well as in cases involving hip implants and talc products.
Related posts:
Johnson & Johnson hit for $80 million in punitive damages in New Jersey talc case
Johnson & Johnson hit for $25 million in punitive damages in Indiana
Los Angeles trial court tosses $417 million talc verdict
L.A. jury awards $347 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in talc case
Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation
Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict
Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case
-
Philadelphia jury awards $25 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that yesterday a jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed she suffered serious health complications after being implanted with Ethicon vaginal mesh. Johnson & Johnson is Ethicon’s parent company.
Johnson & Johnson has been battered with punitive damages awards in recent years. Juries have awarded punitive damages in other mesh cases, as well as in cases involving hip implants and talc products.
Related posts:
Johnson & Johnson hit for $80 million in punitive damages in New Jersey talc case
Johnson & Johnson hit for $25 million in punitive damages in Indiana
Los Angeles trial court tosses $417 million talc verdict
L.A. jury awards $347 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson in talc case
Johnson & Johnson gets hit again for punitive damages in Missouri talc litigation
Johnson & Johnson hit for $65 million in punitive damages in third big talc verdict
Johnson & Johnson vows to appeal $1 billion punitive damages award in hip implant case
-
Las Vegas jury awards $32.4 million in punitive damages against hospital
The Seymour Tribute reports on a Las Vegas jury verdict awarding $10.5 million in compensatory damages and $32.4 million in punitive damages against Centennial Hills Hospital. The plaintiffs claimed that the hospital caused the death of a 29-year-old woman by administering a drug in excess of the manufacturer’s recommended dose.
-
Las Vegas jury awards $32.4 million in punitive damages against hospital
The Seymour Tribute reports on a Las Vegas jury verdict awarding $10.5 million in compensatory damages and $32.4 million in punitive damages against Centennial Hills Hospital. The plaintiffs claimed that the hospital caused the death of a 29-year-old woman by administering a drug in excess of the manufacturer’s recommended dose.
-
“Dishwasher awarded $21M after being forced to work on Sundays”
WGN reports on a Miami verdict awarding $536,000 in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages against the Conrad hotel for firing a dishwasher who failed to report to work on Sundays.
The plaintiff argued that the hotel discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her religious practices, which preclude her from working on Sundays. As the story notes, however, the punitive damages will be capped at $300,000 (the maximum amount permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
-
“Dishwasher awarded $21M after being forced to work on Sundays”
WGN reports on a Miami verdict awarding $536,000 in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages against the Conrad hotel for firing a dishwasher who failed to report to work on Sundays.
The plaintiff argued that the hotel discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her religious practices, which preclude her from working on Sundays. As the story notes, however, the punitive damages will be capped at $300,000 (the maximum amount permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
-
“Sixth Circuit Rules that Cap on Punitive Damages is Unconstitutional”
The National Law Review reports on a recent Sixth Circuit opinion striking down a Tennessee statute that limited punitive damages to the greater of $500,000 or two times compensatory damages. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion holds that the Tennessee constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial on the amount of punitive damages, and that a cap on the amount is inconsistent with that right.
Courts around the country have reached different results on this issue. For example, a 2018 federal district court decision rejected the same argument under North Carolina law.
-
“Sixth Circuit Rules that Cap on Punitive Damages is Unconstitutional”
The National Law Review reports on a recent Sixth Circuit opinion striking down a Tennessee statute that limited punitive damages to the greater of $500,000 or two times compensatory damages. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion holds that the Tennessee constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial on the amount of punitive damages, and that a cap on the amount is inconsistent with that right.
Courts around the country have reached different results on this issue. For example, a 2018 federal district court decision rejected the same argument under North Carolina law.