In January we reported on a large punitive damages award against Bikram Choudhury, founder of Bikram Yoga.  My News LA reports that the trial judge (Judge Mark Mooney of the Los Angeles Superior Court) has ordered the plaintiff to accept a reduction of the punitive damages from $6.47 to $4.6 million or face a new trial.  The reduced amount is five times the amount of compensatory damages (the jury awarded seven times the compensatories).

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that a federal district court jury in Wisconsin has awarded nearly $1 billion in damages, including $700 million in punitive damages, against Tata Consultancy Services for theft of trade secrets. The plaintiff, software maker Epic, accused a Tata employee of posing as an Epic customer in order to gain access to proprietary information on Epic’s computer network. 

This case reminds us once again that punitive damages are awarded in cases that do not fit the mold of consumer versus large corporation.  Epic, the plaintiff here, is a corporation that generated revenues in excess of $2 billion in 2015.  

The Times of India reports that Tata intends to appeal.  The story reports that, according to Tata, the district court judge has already indicated he will reduce the amount of damages.

Guideposts reports on a Georgia district court’s decision to reduce the punitive damages against Wright Medical Technology for alleged defects in a hip implant device.

Related posts:

Atlanta jury awards $10 million in punitive damages against hip implant manufacturer

Eugene Volokh reports about an interesting Ohio Supreme Court decision that permits a plaintiff to seek punitive damages from the estate of a deceased tortfeasor. 

Unlike Ohio, California follows the majority rule, i.e., no punitive damages against dead people.  (See Code of Civil Procedure section 377.42.)  However, California law does permit judgment creditors to enforce a punitive damages judgment against the estate of a tortfeasor who dies after entry of judgment.  The plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is extinguished only if the debtor dies before judgment is entered.

A week ago, the folks at Guideposts observed that February brought “a blizzard of punitive damages awards,” including a $62 million award against Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit alleging that talcum powder caused the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer.

As the calendar has turned to March, the large punitive damages awards of 2016 have continued.  Courthouse News reports that a federal judge in Las Vegas has awarded $27 million in punitive damages, on top of $11 million in compensatory damages, in a defamation case.  The plaintiff’s lawyer has stated that the $38 million award is one of the largest ever for defamation on the internet. 

Closer to home, the Ventura County Star reports that a jury has awarded $3 million in punitive damages and $1 million in compensatory damages in a case involving financial fraud against an elderly plaintiff.

This interesting article by the folks at McGuire Woods appears on Bloomberg BNA’s website.

The article discusses the five reprehensibility factors that the Supreme Court set forth in its BMW and State Farm opinions.  The Supreme Court intended these factors to provide a basis for comparing different types of misconduct, but as the article points out, the factors were developed in cases involving economic torts.  As such, they are ill-suited to product liability cases. 

The article proposes an alternative set of factors that would permit more meaningful distinctions between the possible types of misconduct that could arise in products cases:

1. Whether in designing the product, the defendant attempted to comply with applicable government or industry safety standards;

2. Whether the defendant engaged in safety testing;

3. Whether the defendant took steps to warn consumers about possible injury;

4. Whether the defendant affirmatively concealed its knowledge of defects known to cause injury;

5. Whether the defendant implemented a mechanism for receiving customer complaints and monitoring product safety;

6. Whether and how the defendant investigated product-related injuries;

7. Whether the defendant voluntarily took measures to make its product safer or issued new or additional safety warnings.

The article explains that these factors are not only tailored for products liability cases, but they are intended to include both aggravating factors and mitigating factors (in contrast to the Supreme Court’s list which includes aggravating factors, i.e., justifications for a higher punitive damages award).