66.740 Punitive Damages; Amount; Generally

66.740 Punitive Damages; Amount; Generally (Note: Trial shall be bifurcated. Phase 1. The jury determines whether or not punitive damages shall be imposed. For nonproduct liability cases, Phase 1A or 2A concerns the nonproduct liability cap special findings, i.e., issues of intent, alcohol, or drugs. It is clear the trial must be bifurcated unless stipulated otherwise. There is disagreement on whether the issue of the cap findings should be included in the first phase or the second phase. There are practical and possibly tactical reasons to go either way, but no legal guidance. The committee has attempted to offer either option. Phase 2. The trial resumes to receive evidence bearing upon the proper amount to deter, penalize, or punish the defendant. Then, the jury sets the amount of punitive damages to be awarded.) You have decided to award (impose) punitive damages. Next you must determine the appropriate amount of punitive damages. In doing so, you should consider all the evidence in the first phase of the trial, plus any evidence admitted in the most recent phase of the trial. (You should also bear in mind that the plaintiff's injury has been made whole by your award of compensatory damages). The sole purpose of punitive damages is to punish, penalize, or deter the defendant, and the amount you award (impose) should reflect that purpose only. (Note: The entire subject of punitive damages seems to be in a state of flux and is hotly disputed. These issues must be briefed by counsel and researched by the court. The main benefit of what follows is to acquaint the judge with likely issues and possible, not necessarily approved, charges. Your attention is invited to J. Scalia's comment in dissent: "The punitive damages jurisprudence which has sprung forth from BMW v. Gore is insusceptible of principled application; accordingly, I do not feel justified in giving the case stare decisis effect.")