After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?

Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008

Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237

11 Pages Posted: 9 May 2008 Last revised: 27 Sep 2008

See all articles by Anthony J. Sebok

Anthony J. Sebok

Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

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.

Suggested Citation

Sebok, Anthony J., After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?. Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008, Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1131387

Anthony J. Sebok (Contact Author)

Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )

55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
105
Abstract Views
1,221
Rank
462,937
PlumX Metrics