(1)
establishing a liability "trigger" that reflects the
intentional tort origins and quasi-criminal nature
of punitive damages awards -- "clear and convincing
evidence" of "actual malice";
(2)
requiring proportionality in punitive damages so
that the punishment fits the offense;
(3)
permitting a defendant to request "bifurcation" of a
punitive damages trial, so that the proceedings on
punitive damages would be separate from and
subsequent to the proceedings on compensatory
damages before the same jury;
(4)
precluding plaintiffs from introducing prejudicial
net worth evidence;
(5)
precluding evidence of a defendant's out-of-state
conduct to award and calculate punitive damages;
(6)
encouraging the development and marketing of
lifesaving and life-enhancing pharmaceuticals,
vaccines, and medical devices by creating a defense
to punitive damages based on compliance with FDA
pre-market approval standards, except in cases where
the approval was obtained through fraud or bribery;
and
(7)
federal legislation to address the special problem
of multiple punitive damages awards; this would
protect against unfair overkill, guard against
possible due process violations, and help preserve
the ability of future claimants to recover basic
out-of-pocket expenses and damages for their pain
and suffering.
