Question

Howson won a lawsuit against Hardwick for intentionally inflicting emotional distress. The jury awarded Howson $500,000 in compensatory damages. It also awarded Howson $4 million in punitive damages because Hardwick was quite wealthy and the jury thought a large amount was necessary for Hardwick to feel the punishing effects of the judgment. How does the jury's award fit into the guidelines offered by the U.S. Supreme Court?

a.
The punitive award is excessive because it exceeds the Supreme Court's suggested ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages.
b.
The punitive award is excessive because the Supreme Court has stated that the trial court may not use the defendant's wealth as an excuse to award an unreasonably high award.
c.
The punitive award is excessive both because of the ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages and because the punitive damage award was based partly on the defendant's wealth.
d.
The jury award is not excessive based on the Supreme Court's guidelines.

Answer 1

The $4 million a. punitive damages might be excessive as the Supreme Court indicates punitive damages should not be grossly disproportional to the compensatory amount and not solely based on a defendant's wealth.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question asks whether the punitive damages awarded in a lawsuit for intentionally inflicting emotional distress are excessive based on the U.S. Supreme Court's guidelines. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages against a wealthy defendant. According to the Supreme Court, punitive damages must not be grossly disproportional to the severity of the offense and typically suggests a ratio to compensatory damages which the $4 million award may exceed.

Additionally, while the defendant's wealth may be considered, it should not justify an excessively high award. Therefore, the punitive award could be excessive based on the ratio and because it was influenced by the defendant's wealth.