BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | Award of punitive damages upheld in Alabama Supreme Court |
Holding | |
Excessive punitive damages awards violate substantive due process. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer |
Concurrence | Breyer, joined by O'Connor, Souter |
Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a
Facts
The
Issue
Whether excessively high punitive damages violate the Due Process clause of the Constitution.
Opinion of the Court
The Court, in an opinion by
The Supreme Court applied three factors in making this determination:
- The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;
- The ratio to the compensatory damages awarded (actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff); and
- Comparison of the punitive damages award and civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.
Using these factors, the Court found that BMW's conduct was not particularly reprehensible (no reckless disregard for health or safety, nor even evidence of bad faith). The ratio of actual or potential damages to punitive damages was suspiciously high. Finally, the criminal sanctions available for similar conduct were limited to $2,000, making the $2 million assessment the equivalent of a severe criminal penalty.
The Court noted, however, that these three factors can be over-ridden if it is "necessary to deter future conduct".
Dissenting opinions were written by
Aftermath
On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded.[3] The court reasoned that it may not have given sufficient weight to the degree of reprehensibility of BMW's conduct, and selected the $50,000 as in the range of other Alabama verdicts in cases of repaired cars being sold as new.
Federalism questions
In an academic article, following the arguments raised by the dissenting justices, Patrick Hubbard has questioned the appropriateness of federal courts reading substantive rights into the
See also
- State Farm v. Campbell(2003)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 517
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
- ^ 517 U.S. 559 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)
- ^ {L. Andrew Goggans, M.A.}[1]
- ^ BMW, Inc. v. Gore, 701 So. 2d 507 (Ala. 1997)
- ^ a b F. Patrick Hubbard, "In Honor of Walter O. Weyrauch: Substantive Due Process Limits on Punitive Damages Awards: 'Morals With Technique?'", 60 Fla. L. Rev. 349, 352 (2008).
External links
- Works related to BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore at Wikisource
- Text of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- "Bad enough to punish: The application of the responsibility guidepost in punitive damages cases after BMW v. Gore" Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel Quarterly, Fall 1998