Huge disclaimers here – I haven’t read the judge’s opinion and I haven’t read the case law upon which he presumably relies. But that won’t stop me from holding forth with an opinion of my own. Jon Murray, writing for the Indianapolis Star, reports on a case out of Marion County where judge David Dreyer declared unconstitutional Indiana’s statutory cap which limits punitive damages to three times the compensatory damages or $50,000, whichever is greater.
Compensatory damages is that money necessary to make the plaintiff whole – to compensate the plaintiff for damages actually sustained. Punitive damages are damages used to punish the defendant – hopefully as a deterrent.
As his rationale, Dreyer cited the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches as well as the right to a trial by jury that is among the core values of the state constitution.
“The Statute’s two provisions . . . interpose the will of the General Assembly to supersede otherwise valid jury verdicts,” Dreyer wrote in the decision.
. . .
Some legal experts think the ruling will be overturned. They say lawmakers exercised a valid power when they restricted punitive damages and did not infringe on the authority of the courts.
. . .
The ruling came Friday in case where a jury had awarded a Greene County man $5,000 in compensatory damages in his sexual abuse lawsuit against a priest. Jurors also added $150,000 in punitive damages, which would have to be reduced under the cap to $50,000.
For my part, because I don’t think the General Assembly has to permit an award of punitive damages in the first place, I don’t think it’s likely that a court has much room to strike down legislation that limits the award of punitive damages. But, the higher courts and I have not always seen things eye-to-eye, and they get the last word. I would expect this one to be appealed.
I haven’t read the opinion either…but superficially at least, it seems like if it is constitutional to require that 75% of punitive damages go to the violent crime victim’s fund, it would also be constitutional to simply do away with punitive damages altogether.
I haven’t read the opinion either…but I’ll bet a doughnut that it is a fine example of reasoning FROM a conclusion, rather than TO one.
Heck, I can afford a doughnut (and an apology) if needed – but if I win I want Dunkin Donuts glazed!
Or competition had a 10 year non pay storage a number of years ago that they decided to sell. They paid to put the ad in the paper for the appropriate number of weeks, per law–but failed to notice that the paper omitted one week. After the sale the woman went to court for pain and suffering because her daughter was baptized in a gown that had been in storage. We went to see how it would go. She cried and cried. At the end of the trial she got $12,000.00. Three times the value of the goods. She had owed twice that much in storage. The furniture had sold, but we never sell personal things like letters, pictures or clothes. We heard her say over and over that if she had that dress of her daughters she would not have been so devastated. Her lawyer knew that the personal things had not been sold. Our friend could not figure out why it was never allowed into the hearings. We all felt scared after that. We have some shipments in storage that have not paid for 30 years but I would never go through that kind of feeling again.