The Relevance of Statutory Fines
The Court of Appeals next rejected
the Khalifas’ second principal argument that the damages were excessive because the punitive damages imposed totaled 180 times the maximum criminal fine of $5,000 for parental kidnapping. Id. at 145-46. The Khalifas had argued that the
criminal statute was controlling. The Court disagreed and explained that when the principal sanction under a criminal statute is imprisonment, then the crimi- nal fine may not be at all helpful: There are many serious criminal offences chiefly aimed at individu- als, rather than corporate entities, where the principal sanction is imprisonment, and the monetary penalty is relatively small.
Id. at 145. So here the Court opined and the fine is not helpful in determining the appropriateness of punitive damages awarded.
Be Careful With Comparisons If You Do Nothing to Remedy the Situation
The Khalifas final principal argument
on appeal was that the punitive damages awarded were excessive in comparison to other punitive awards. Not so said the Court when you consider that “the [Khalifas’] activity is particularly hei- nous.” Id. at 148. After commenting on the appalling
behavior of the Khalifas in some detail, the Court of Appeals emphasized that it was compelling that the Khalifas had not taken any action to rectify the situation. Id. Indeed, the Court considered the ongoing abductions as an aggravating factor making a high punitive award ap- propriate to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Citing Bowden, the Court of Appeals stated that if a defen- dant takes remedial or corrective action promptly after the misconduct giving rise to the punitive damages award, such action should be a mitigating factor. Id.
Winter 2009
at 148-49. The Khalifas had done no such thing.
Conclusion Mr. Shannon “will never be fully
compensated for the loss of society and companionship that he has suf- fered at the hands of the Appellants.” Id. at 149. Yet by doggedly pursuing his case for many, many years on behalf of his children, Mr. Shannon has done a tremendous service to the cause of all plaintiffs. Such a result can never replace his children but may prevent other heinous acts when the perpetra-
tors recognize they may face significant punitive damages awards that will be affirmed by our courts of appeal. n
About the Author
Stephen Cullen was lead counsel for Mr. Shannon in the Khalifa case. Stephen is a partner at Miles & Stockbridge P.C. and is Head of the firm’s Family Law & Pri- vate Client Group handling all types of tort cases and family law cases. Stephen is also the firm’s Pro Bono Director. Before immigrating to the United States, Stephen was first a high school teacher and then a lawyer in Scotland.
Trial Reporter
57
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