Abstract
2019 was a strange year. One of its strangest cases was decided only a month ago. The case—Saccameno v. Ocwen—involves a dizzying nightmare of facts. The jury thought the ordeal, which caused the plaintiff to develop severe mental illness, merited $3,000,000 in punitive damages. The 7th Circuit disagreed with both the jury and the district judge, partly because (it said) the reprehensibility analysis used to determine the constitutionality of punitive damage awards takes a plaintiff's deteriorating physical but not mental state into account. In doing so, it lowered the award to produce a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages—$582,000. Although it may have been legally correct, the 7th Circuit's decision highlights a troubling trend in American law—one undermining the Seventh Amendment—wherein judicial elites instead of juries, our most democratic institution, are empowered to decide punitive damages awards.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call