Product Liability -- 2008



Chemtall Inc. v. Stern   (U.S. Supreme Court)

Procedure for early consideration of punitive damages

The NAM had joined with other groups in August 2007 urging the West Virginia Supreme Court to strike down a trial court plan that requires a determination of punitive damages liability and a punitive damages multiplier before certification of a medical monitoring class, before a full determination of the defendants' liability for medical monitoring, and before any medical monitoring damages have been determined.

The case involves alleged exposure to polyacrylamide, which is used in to treat coal wash water at coal preparation plants. We argued that punitive damages must be based on actual damages, and cannot be determined in a vacuum before actual damages are determined. The trial court had not yet determined who should be in the class of plaintiffs, let alone whether any of them were actually harmed by the plaintiffs or how reprehensible the challenged conduct was to those plaintiffs. Setting punitive damages without making such determinations biases the jury, arbitrarily imposes punishment, and jeopardizes the right to receive a fair trial in West Virginia.

On Nov. 15, the West Virginia Supreme Court denied the appeal. It ruled that determining the constitutionality of punitive damages requires that it wait until the lower court actually enters a judgment awarding punitive damages. It also indicated its reluctance to intervene in pre-trial issues.

After the West Virginia Supreme Court refused to strike down this plan, the NAM filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging that the decision be reviewed and overturned. On 3/31/08, the Court declined to hear this appeal.

See also earlier cases decided in West Virginia in 2004 and 2007, Chemtall Inc. v. Madden.


Related Documents:
NAM brief  (February 28, 2008)
Summary of Chemtall Inc. v. Madden (West Virginia Supreme Court)  (August 15, 2007)
Summary of Chemtall Inc. v. Madden (West Virginia Supreme Court)  (August 2, 2004)