section 908

Citation: section 908
Parent Document: Patrick Blanks v. Fluor Corporation, 450 S.W.3d 308 (2014)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2014-09-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2733178/patrick-blanks-v-fluor-corporation/ ↗

Full Text

881 chars

70
  The constitutional concerns are both procedural and substantive. Letz, 975 S.W.2d at 177. Procedurally,
due process requires that adequate standards and controls be in place to prevent a punitive-damage award
from becoming an arbitrary deprivation of property. Barnett v. LaSociete Anonyme Turbomeca France,
963 S.W.2d 639, 662 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)(overruled on other grounds by Badahman v. Catering St.
Louis, 395 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. banc 2013)). Proper jury instruction and review of a jury award by the trial
court and an appellate court generally satisfies due process. Letz, 975 S.W.2d at 177. Substantively, a
punitive-damage award cannot be so “grossly excessive” in relation to the state’s interest in punishment
and deterrence that it enters into the “zone of arbitrariness” that violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Id; Barnett, 963 S.W.2d at 662.

Other Sections in This Document (3455)

Full Text