Held: Oregon's denial of review of the size of
punitive damages awards violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
In affirming, both the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court rejected Honda's argument that
the punitive damages award violated due process because it was excessive and because Oregon courts have no power to correct excessive verdicts under a 1910 amendment to the State Constitution, which prohibits judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awarded by a jury «unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict.»
The statute setting a $ 250,000 limit on
punitive damages awards violated the right to jury trial under the State Constitution.
Not exact matches
A plurality in TXO assented to the proposition that «grossly excessive»
punitive damages would
violate due process, 509 U. S., at 453 - 455, while JUSTICE O'CONNOR, who dissented because she favored more rigorous standards, noted that» [i] t is thus common ground that an
award may be so excessive as to
violate due process,» id., at 480.
Indeed, a few weeks ago, the Commission des relations du travail, Quebec's labour tribunal,
awarded a worker $ 3,000 in moral and
punitive damages following an earlier 2010 decision concluding that the Charter had been
violated (see Pouliot c. Quality Inn & Suites Lévis, 2010 QCCRT 592 (CanLII) and Pouliot c Quality Inn & Suites Lévis, 2011 QCCRT 214 (CanLII)-- the decisions are in French).
The split - recovery statute allocating 60 % of
punitive damages award to the state did not
violate the right to a remedy, the right to a jury trial, the takings or tax provisions, or the separation of powers under the State Constitution.
Additionally, the trial court assessed
punitive damages against the Broker and
awarded the Buyer attorney fees, as permitted for violations of the Act which the jury found the Broker had
violated.