Honda Motor Co., LTD., et al. v. Karl L. Oberg (512 U.S. 415)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 24, 1994 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 512 U.S. 415 · 114 S. Ct. 2331
- Decided
- June 24, 1994
- Term
- October Term 1993
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. An amendment to the Oregon Constitution prohibits judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awarded by a jury “unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support the verdict.” The question presented is whether that prohibition is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that it is not. I Petitioner Honda Motor Co., Ltd., manufactured and sold the three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle that overturned while respondent was driving it, causing him severe and permanent injuries. Respondent brought suit alleging that petitioner knew or should have known that the vehicle had an inherently and unreasonably dangerous design. The jury found petitioner liable and awarded respondent $919,390.39 in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $5 million. The compensatory damages, however, were reduced by 20% to $735,512.31, because respondent’s own negligence contributed to the accident. On appeal, relying on our then-recent decision in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991), petitioner argued that the award of punitive damages violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the punitive damages were excessive and because Oregon courts lacked the power to correct excessive verdicts. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Oregon…
Excerpt of a 36,710-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.