02.26.07
Punitive Damages Are Not For General Deterrence
Rachel A. Helfeld
Carol Tarr prevailed on her sexual harassment suit against Bob Ciasulli’s Auto Mall (“Ciasulli’s) and was awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $85,000 in punitive damages, in addition to attorney’s fees and costs. Ciasulli’s appealed the judgment, claiming that the punitive damage award was improper.
A New Jersey appeals court held that punitive damages serve to punish wrongdoing and to deter future offenses. By their nature, punitive damage awards may deter others from similar misconduct. However, the court held that a punitive damage award must be reasonably connected to defendant′s prohibited conduct. A jury may not enhance the award beyond the amount required to deter the specific defendant at hand in order to also deter other potential wrongdoers.
The court overruled the jury’s punitive damage award, finding that plaintiff′s argument -- which focused on sending a message to deter others from similar conduct -- was improper. In remanding the case for a new trial, the court opined that the purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter a particular defendant from particular conduct.
Tarr v. Bob Ciassulli Mack Auto Mall, Inc., No. A-6383-04T3 (N.J. App. Div. Feb 26, 2007)
TAGS: