Shore

Shore v. Gurnett

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 166·18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1512·2004 Daily Journal DAR 11373·4 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8408
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2004A101916California3,301 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

The United States Supreme Court has relied on the federal due process clause to constitutionalize the law of punitive damages. (State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 [ 155 L.Ed.2d 585 , 123 S.Ct. 1513 ] (Campbell); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 U.S. 559 [ 134 L.Ed.2d 809 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 ] (Gore).) Campbell and Gore not only prescribe procedural limitations on such awards but, substantively, forbid awards that are grossly excessive. Appellant Deborah L. Gurnett (Gurnett) argues for a significant expansion of the constitutional limits on punitive damages. She contends that repetitive penalties imposed on a defendant for a single source of conduct violate provisions of the federal Constitution, regardless of the size of the sanctions levied. Specifically, Gurnett argues that because she was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and sentenced to state prison, she may not be subject to punitive damages in a subsequent civil proceeding initiated by the decedent’s family. We disagree and affirm.

Background

The nature of the issues raised in this appeal requires only a limited discussion of the tragic facts underlying the competing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.