{"title":"州立农场案后的判决在确定惩罚性赔偿与补偿性赔偿的宪法允许比例时考虑了比较过失","authors":"William E. Marple","doi":"10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The US Supreme Court has established two important constitutional limits on punitive damages awards: they are subject to review for substantive reasonableness and the amount of the award may not be predicated on harm that a defendant caused to non-parties. These limits call into question the well-settled principle in most jurisdictions that comparative fault may not be used to reduce punitive damage awards.","PeriodicalId":39023,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Private Law","volume":"55 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post State Farm decisions have considered comparative fault in determining the constitutionally permissible ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages\",\"authors\":\"William E. Marple\",\"doi\":\"10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The US Supreme Court has established two important constitutional limits on punitive damages awards: they are subject to review for substantive reasonableness and the amount of the award may not be predicated on harm that a defendant caused to non-parties. These limits call into question the well-settled principle in most jurisdictions that comparative fault may not be used to reduce punitive damage awards.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Private Law\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Post State Farm decisions have considered comparative fault in determining the constitutionally permissible ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages
The US Supreme Court has established two important constitutional limits on punitive damages awards: they are subject to review for substantive reasonableness and the amount of the award may not be predicated on harm that a defendant caused to non-parties. These limits call into question the well-settled principle in most jurisdictions that comparative fault may not be used to reduce punitive damage awards.