ages, they attacked the punitive damages award in the Court of Appeals. First, the Court of Appeals reiterated the factors that a court
should consider in limiting the size of punitive damages awards, which the Court described as “principles of law.” Id. at 142. Founding on Bowden v. Caldor, Inc., 350 Md. 4, 47 (1998) the Court set forth the nine factors that are relevant to a court reviewing punitive damages. The Court emphasized that these factors are not intended to be exclusive or all encompassing and that there may well be other relevant principles that should apply in particular circumstances. Id.
The nine enumerated factors are: 1. The defendant’s ability to pay; 2. The relationship of the award to statutorily imposed crimi- nal fines;
3. The amount of the award in comparison to other final puni- tive damages awards in the jurisdiction and in comparable cases;
4. The gravity of the defendant’s conduct; 5. The deterrent value of the award both with respect to the defendant and the general public;
6. Whether compensatory damages, including litigation ex- penses, sufficiently compensate the plaintiff;
7. Whether a reasonable relationship exists between compen- satory and punitive damages;
8. Whether evidence of other final and satisfied punitive
Join MAJ’s Listserv Find out why MAJ members think the listserv is the most valuable membership service MAJ provides.
• Post questions • Seek Advice • Talk Strategy
Gain the opinions of the best legal experts around -- your colleagues.
Contact MAJ
E-mail: info@marylandassociation
forjustice.com Phone: (410) 872-0990
damages awards against the same defendant for the same conduct should be considered; and
9. If separate torts are implicated, whether they grew out of the same occurrence or episode.
The Court of Appeals initially found that factors (8) and (9)
were not implicated in the Khalifas’ appeal. The Khalifas’ primary appellate argument regarding dam-
ages was that Mr. Shannon had failed to establish that they had the ability to pay the damages. Of great importance for all plaintiffs seeking punitive damages, the Court of Appeals soundly rejected such an argument.
A Guidepost is All the Plaintiff Need Establish
Citing with approval Darcars Motors of Silver Springs, Inc.
v. Borzym, 379 Md. 249, 275-76 (2004), the Court of Appeals stated:
Sound reasoning supports our view that a plaintiff has no obligation to establish a defendant’s ability to pay punitive damages. Compelling a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to present evidence of a defendant’s financial condition could … require a plaintiff with limited financial resources to wage a complicated discovery campaign against a mon- etarily sated defendant.
* * *
A plaintiff does not bear a burden to present evidence of a defendant’s financial condition in support of its pursuit of punitive damages.
* * *
[The Khalifas’] assertion … that there is nothing whatso- ever in the record to provide a “guidepost” for determining their ability to pay punitive damages is rebuffed by Michael Shannon’s uncontroverted testimony on direct examina- tion.
* * *
We do not require Shannon to prove that appellants can pay nor do we require him to prove that the referenced properties [all over the world] were titled under their names. Shannon’s uncontroverted testimony concerning the Khalifas’ wealth is sufficient to conclude that the jury’s $2,000,000 award is neither disproportionate nor excessive with respect to the Khalifas’ ability to pay.
Id. at 144-45. So as long as the plaintiff provides a simple “guidepost” regarding a defendant’s wealth, a court should not disturb the award on that ground. All the burden is therefore put back on the defendant, as it should be in these types of circumstances.
56 Trial Reporter Winter 2009
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76