We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER: THE PERILS OF JUDICIAL PUNITIVE DAMAGES REFORM.
- Authors
Kerr, Jeff
- Abstract
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker established a conservative one-to-one cap on the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages in maritime law. This decision raises the question whether the Court will apply a similar constitutional limit in future punitive damages cases. In the meantime, lower courts have already begun to rely on Exxon Shipping as persuasive authority for limiting punitive damages further than the Supreme Court's previous cases require. This Comment argues that Exxon Shipping's one-to-one cap in maritime cases is inconsistent with key principles of punitive damages law, advises against the application of Exxon Shipping's one-to-one cap in non-maritime cases, and explains why the Supreme Court should not enact a similar cap on punitive damages in future constitutional cases. Punitive damages are too important to be capped at a one-to-one ratio with compensatory damages. This Comment explains that such a cap has the potential to create significant economic inefficiencies. Moreover, a one-to-one cap undermines the retributive role of punitive damages since reprehensible conduct often may not result in substantial compensatory damages. The rule of Exxon Shipping will likely remain the law in admiralty, but, as this Comment argues, courts should not to expand the rule of Exxon Shipping beyond maritime cases.
- Subjects
EXXON Shipping Co.; EXEMPLARY damages; MARITIME law; CONSTITUTIONAL courts; LEX talionis; STRICT liability
- Publication
Emory Law Journal, 2010, Vol 59, Issue 3, p727
- ISSN
0094-4076
- Publication type
Article