Publication Date
2008
Journal
Charleston Law Review
Abstract
This short essay was written for a symposium on The Future of Punitive Damages held at the Charleston School of Law in 2007. I argue that the ratio rule (that punitive damages that exceed a single digit ratio presumptively violate the Due Process Clause), introduced by the Supreme Court in Campbell, is unlikely to survive. I argue this for three reasons. First, many lower courts have found ways to conceal punitive damages awards that impose, in reality, ratios in the double-digits. Second, the refusal of the Court to reverse the plaintiffs punitive damages award in Williams under the ratio rule - given that it was 98 times the compensatory award - suggests that there are members of the Court who may not want to stand behind the rule. Third, the rule represents a mistaken critique of punitive damages.
Volume
2
First Page
287
Publisher
Charleston School of Law
Keywords
damages, symposium, punishment
Disciplines
Law
Recommended Citation
Anthony J. Sebok,
After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the "Single-Digit" Ratio?,
2
Charleston L. Rev.
287
(2008).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/295
