Teen Astrology | Problem Mortgage | Mortgages | Car Credit | Unsecured Loans
James Kilpatrick: Judicial restraint in liability case [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : James Kilpatrick: Judicial restraint in liability case


Celebraman
04-24-2003, 11:46 PM
James J. Kilpatrick
April 23, 2003

BACK TO O'CONNOR'S EYEBROW

The driver behaved recklessly. The insurance company behaved badly. The courts of Utah let things get out of hand. And two weeks ago, in the field of punitive damages, the Supreme Court resumed its unwanted role as the one great legislature over all. This is not an occasion for rejoicing.
At least the underlying facts are clear. On a day in May 1981, Curtis Campbell was driving with his wife on a two-lane highway in northern Utah. In an attempt to pass six slow-moving vans, he triggered a head-on collision in which one man was killed and another was permanently disabled. Campbell was insured by State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.

State Farm unwisely decided to contest its liability. Bad decision. Other bad decisions followed. At one point in 1984 the company could have settled everything for $50,000. Instead, the company's agents gave the Campbells such a hard time that in 1989 they sued State Farm for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury returned a verdict in their favor -- take a deep breath -- of $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Utah approved.

In its 6-3 opinion of April 7, the high court ordered Utah's Supreme Court to get real. On remand, Utah must reconsider whether so huge an award violates the 14th Amendment's promise that a state may not deprive State Farm of its property without due process of law. Does the judgment cross the constitutional line? click here to continue (http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/)

Timberwolf
04-25-2003, 10:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ginsburg had this one exactly right. As recently as 1989, the high court concluded that it had no authority over the punitive damages that are awarded in state civil cases between private parties. If such judgments are outrageous or unfair, it is up to the states to correct them. Hands off.

[/ QUOTE ]
For once, I agree with Justice Ginsberg. This is not a matter for the courts, but for the state legislature(s).

The decision handed down by the Supremes is the right decision...what's wrong is that said decision was made by the wrong people.