BROADCASTS.com

b'

The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems,  and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus.  Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000  years ago in the Code of Hammurabi, in the Hittite Laws of about 1400  B.C., in the Hebrew Covenant Code of Mosaic Law of about 1200 B.C., and  in the Hindu Code of Manu of about 200 B.C. [Owen, Punitive Damages in  Product Liability Litigation, 74 Mich L Rev 1257, 1262 n17 (1976).]  The book of Exodus in the Old Testament provides:  If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay  five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make  restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If  the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox  or an ass or a sheep, he shall pay double. [EXODUS, 22:1]  The punitive damages remedy has a long history. It was first articulated  in England in a case of illegal entry. The jury was held justified in  going beyond \\u201cthe small injury done to the plaintiff\\u201d because of the  desirability of taking account of \\u201ca most daring public attack made upon  the liberty of the subject\\u201d through entry and imprisonment pursuant to  \\u201ca nameless warrant.\\u201d [ Huckle v. Money, 2 Will.K.B. 206, 95 Eng.Rep.  768 (1763) and Wilkes v. Wood, Lofft 1, 18, 19, 98 Eng.Rep. 489, 498-99  (C.P.1763)}

By the mid-1800s, as punitive damages increasingly became an established  part of American tort law, American courts emphasized the punishment  purpose of punitive damages. For example, in Hawk v Ridgway (1864) 33  Ill 473, 476, the court stated, "[w]here the wrong is wanton, or it is  willful, the jury is authorized to give an amount of damages beyond the  actual injury sustained as a punishment, and to preserve the public  tranquility." Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court noted in  a concurring opinion that, "In 1868, therefore, when the Fourteenth  Amendment was adopted, punitive damages were undoubtedly an established  part of American common law of torts." [Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v  Haslip (1991) 499 US 1, 26, 113 L Ed 2d 1, 25, 111 S Ct 1032.]  Application of Punitive Damages  In 2003 the US Supreme Court put limited punitive damages in the United  States when in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell.  123 S.Ct. 1513, 538 U.S. 408, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (U.S. 04/07/2003) by a 6-3  vote, overturned a $145 million verdict against an insurer. The Supreme  Court concluded that a punitive damages award of $145 million, where  full compensatory damages were $1 million, is excessive and violates the  Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority limited the ability of state  and federal courts to award huge punitive damages awards and concluded  that it was improbable that a punitive damage award more than a single  digit multiplier of the compensatory damages award would seldom, if  ever, pass the due process test. The Supreme Court, in BMW of North  America, Inc. v. Gore, supra, set forth specific tests that must be met  before punitive damages could fulfill the requirements of due process.