440
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
"[T]he clear-and-convincing evidence requirement," which is considerably more rigorous than the standards applied by Alabama in Haslip 4 and West Virginia in TXO,5 "constrain[s] the jury's discretion, limiting punitive damages to the more egregious cases." Haslip, 499 U. S., at 58 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Nothing in Oregon law appears to preclude a new trial order if the trial judge, informed by the jury's verdict, determines that his charge did not adequately explain what the "clear and convincing" standard means. See Ore. Rule Civ. Proc. 64G (1994) (authorizing court to grant new trial "on its own initiative").
Fourth, and perhaps most important, in product liability cases, Oregon requires that punitive damages, if any, be awarded based on seven substantive criteria, set forth in Ore. Rev. Stat. § 30.925(3) (1991):
"(a) The likelihood at the time that serious harm would arise from the defendant's misconduct; "(b) The degree of the defendant's awareness of that likelihood; "(c) The profitability of the defendant's misconduct; "(d) The duration of the misconduct and any concealment of it; "(e) The attitude and conduct of the defendant upon discovery of the misconduct; "(f) The financial condition of the defendant; and "(g) The total deterrent effect of other punishment imposed upon the defendant as a result of the misconduct, including, but not limited to, punitive damage awards to
4 The Haslip jury was told that it could award punitive damages if " 'reasonably satisfied from the evidence' " that the defendant committed fraud. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 6, n. 1 (1991).
5 The TXO jury was instructed to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard. See TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 463, n. 29 (1993).
Page: Index Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007