Abstract
Few issues in the realm of the American civil justice system have been as widely debated as the doctrine of punitive damages. In recent years, the debate has swelled among scholars, commentators, and the public as juries have imposed these awards with greater frequency and in greater amounts. Many have even referred to these awards as "jackpots" because they are awarded in large amounts without any predictability and often without reason. Both the United States Supreme Court and Congress have had an opportunity to impose substantive limits on these exemplary damages, but both have failed to articulate any effective reforms or guidelines. While the Supreme Court has often recognized that there are substantive due process limits on punitive damages awards, it has yet to articulate an effective test for separating constitutional from unconstitutional awards. Similarly, in 1995, Congress actively sought to initiate reforms but its plans were ultimately lost in a political battle.
Recommended Citation
Pohlman, Jill McKee
(1996)
"Punitive Damages in the American Civil
Justice System: Jackpot or Justice?,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1996:
No.
2, Article 8.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1996/iss2/8