What Is The Law On Property Damage?

What Is The Law On Property Damage
What Is The Damage Of Property Law? – Damage of Property Law is the area of law that deals with the compensation of someone who has had their property damaged. This can be done through either a contract or tort law. There are two main types of Damage to Property Law: damages for breach of contract and damages for tortious injury to property.

What is damage to the property?

Property damage Property damage is injury to or, An example could be a chemical leak on a piece of real estate, or damage to a car from an accident. Property owners can obtain property to protect against the risk of property damage. : Property damage

What is the law on property damage in California?

Destruction of Property Laws in California – Under California Penal Code 594, when a person vandalizes, defaces, destroys, or damages property with malicious intent, they will likely be charged with malicious mischief. If the amount of the damage is $400 or more, vandalism is punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

Less than $400 of damage: imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to $1,000;More than $400 but less than $10,000: imprisonment in the county jail of up to one year or a fine of up to $10,000;More than $10,000: imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to $50,000.

What is malicious damage to property in South Africa?

2.2 Malicious injury to property is described as the unlawful and intentional damaging of another=s property.

What is damage to property in the Philippines?

(3) That the act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it. Anent the first element, damage means not only loss but also diminution of what is a man’s own. Thus, damage to another’s house includes defacing it [Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book 2 (19 th Ed.)

What is the punishment for damaging property?

––(1) Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.

What are the three types of damage?

When you’re considering filing a civil lawsuit, you may hear the term “damages” used quite often. If you’re wondering, “What are damages?” you are far from alone. Many people believe damages means damage that is done to you physically, but it is actually a legal term used to describe different types of damages.

Civil damages refers to how much money you may get in a settlement or court award (Kenton, 2020).
There are three types of damage that form the foundation of most civil lawsuits: compensatory, nominal, and punitive.
An attorney can estimate how much your claim may be worth based on your damages.
Your lawyer will ask for you to bring any documentation related to your case to your first meeting.

This may include:

Hospital and doctor bills Paycheck stubs or other proof of income The bill from your emergency transportation Proof that you’ve had to pay housekeepers or caretakers Receipts from any assistive devices you’ve purchased

The more documentation you can provide, the more accurate an attorney’s estimate of your potential settlement in your personal injury case will be. If you’re involved in a legal dispute and you’re seeking a financial award, your attorney will build a case to prove the extent of the harm you suffered from the accused defendant’s actions.

Is it a crime to accidentally damage property?

Criminal Damage Solicitors in London · MFI Law Limited · London Family, Criminal and Immigration Solicitors At MFI Law Limited we have the expertise in representing clients charged with criminal damage. states:

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—
1. intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
2. intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;
shall be guilty of an offence.

Can you sue for accidental damage to property?

If an item causes damage to your property through no fault of your own, you may have a legal right to claim compensation (also known as claiming ‘damages’). For example, you may be able to claim compensation if your washing machine starts leaking and damages your kitchen floor.

How much property damage is a felony in California?

As stated previously, Vandalism is punished based on the value of the property involved. This makes the crime a ‘wobbler’ under California law. If your act of vandalism causes damage of $400 or more, you may be charged with a felony.

Is property damage a civil case?

How you will proceed with a suit for property damage begins with thinking about how much damage you have. Suppose someone’s negligence has destroyed your house and its contents. In that case, you will want to hire an attorney and go through settlement negotiations and, if necessary, litigation to recover damages on that scale.

What is unlawful damage?

Racially (and Religiously) Aggravated Criminal Damage – Section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) creates an offence of racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, based on the basic offence of criminal damage under Section 1(1) CDA 1971.

When can damages be claimed?

If a party to a contract files a suit for losses but proves that while there has been a breach of contract, he has not suffered any real losses, then compensation for nominal damages is awarded. This is done to establish the right to a decree for a breach of contract. Also, the amount can be as low as Re 1.

What is compensation property damage?

Under DCPD, your own insurance company pays for repairs to your vehicle when you are not at-fault for a collision, not someone else’s. It’s a fairer and more customer-focused approach to insurance claims and vehicle repairs.

What is serious property damage?

Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass.

Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production,B. A user may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause pretreatment standards or requirements to be violated, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation, These bypasses are not subject to the provision of paragraphs (C) and (D) of this section,C.

Bypass Notifications(1) If a user knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the Director of Public Works, at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass, if possible, (2) A user shall submit oral notice to the Director of Public Works of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable pretreatment standards within twenty-four (24) hours from the time it becomes aware of the bypass.

A written submission shall also be provided within five (5) days of the time the user becomes aware of the bypass.
The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and if the bypass has not bee corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue ; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass.

The Director of Public Works may waive the written report on a case -by- case basis if the oral report has been received within twenty-four (24) hours.D. Bypass(1) Bypass is prohibited, and the Director of Public Works may take an enforcement action against a user for a bypass, unless

What is the word for damaging someone’s property?

What Is Vandalism? – Vandalism is the willful destruction or damaging of property in a manner that defaces, mars, or otherwise adds a physical blemish that diminishes the property’s value. For example, if you put bumper stickers on a person’s car or spray-paint your name on someone’s fence, this is vandalism. Vandalism can also cover such offenses as:

carving your initials into public park trees or public benches writing your name on a store window with a marker “keying” a car or puncturing its tires breaking a building’s windows, and knocking over grave markers.

While vandalism involves damaging property, it is not always the same as the crime of “destruction of property” or “damage to property.” These crimes can cover more serious physical damage, though some states use these categories to also cover acts of vandalism. In other words, what is vandalism in one state may be destruction of property in another.

What are damaging rules?

Damage rule refers to a principle that the statute of limitations on a claim does not begin to run until the claimant has sustained some legally actionable damage. The limitation clock starts running when the injury occurs. In other words, the limitations period is tolled until the plaintiff is actually injured.

What three 3 things must a court consider in reviewing punitive damages?

Punitive damages: Punishing and deterring oppression, fraud, and malice While the purposes of punitive damages are laudable in a proper case, the limitations imposed upon recovery of punitive damages, and the procedural and substantive obstacles to obtaining and preserving an award of punitive damages, are considerable.

This article presents the law and practical considerations that should be taken into account in cases which present a potential for punitive damages. Punitive damages and their purpose The right to a punitive damages award in California is strictly statutory. Civil Code section 3294 provides that a plaintiff can obtain punitive damages when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.

(See also CACI 3940-3942.) “The primary purposes of punitive damages are punishment and deterrence of like conduct by the wrongdoer and others.” ( Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 810.) The Grimshaw Court commented that punitive damages are “the most effective remedy” for consumer protection against defectively designed mass produced articles: Deterrence of ‘objectionable corporate policies’ serves one of the principal purposes of Civil Code section 3294.

Governmental safety standards and the criminal law have failed to provide adequate consumer protection against the manufacture and distribution of defective products. Punitive damages thus remain as the most effective remedy for consumer protection against defectively designed mass produced articles.

They provide a motive for private individuals to enforce rules of law and enable them to recoup the expenses of doing so which can be considerable and not otherwise recoverable. We find no statutory impediments to the application of Civil Code section 3294 to a strict products liability case based on design defect.

Grimshaw v.
Ford Motor Co.
Supra, at 119 Cal.App.3d 810.) Pleading considerations When punitive damages may be recoverable, a threshold pleading decision is necessary.
Plaintiff’s counsel can decide to allege punitive damages in the original complaint, and face a probable motion to strike punitive damages by the defense.

In the alternative, plaintiff’s counsel may elect to withhold punitive-damage allegations in the original complaint and later bring a motion for leave to file an amended complaint alleging punitive damages after significant discovery has been conducted.

The decision of whether or not to allege punitive damages in the original complaint will depend upon the nature of the defendant’s conduct and the facts known at the time the original complaint is filed. In some types of cases, punitive damages have long been recognized as properly awarded and, in such cases, it is almost always appropriate to allege punitive damages in the original complaint.

( Livesey v. Stock (1929) 208 Cal.315 ; Boyes v. Evans (1936) 14 Cal.App.2d 472 ; Herman v. Glasscock (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 98 ; Thomas v. Doorley (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 545 ; Magliulo v. Superior Court (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 760,) In other cases, such as those seeking punitive damages against an employer based on the conduct of an employee, it will ultimately be necessary to plead and prove an employer’s knowledge of the unfitness of an employee, or the employer’s ratification of the wrongful conduct, or the advance knowledge and conscious disregard on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation.

When dealing with these complex factual patterns it may be preferable not to allege punitive damages in the original complaint, and to instead bring a later motion for leave to file an amended complaint alleging punitive damages – after obtaining discovery that factually supports recovery of punitive damages.

It is invariably asserted by the defense in a motion to strike that punitive damage allegations in plaintiff’s complaint (or amended complaint) must allege facts demonstrating malice. “Conclusory allegations” that defendant’s conduct was “malicious” are insufficient and subject to being stricken,

( Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1036.) The proper standard for determination of a motion to strike punitive damages is whether plaintiff has alleged “ultimate facts” showing an entitlement to exemplary damages. ( Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) Plaintiff is not required to prove in his complaint that the defendant is liable for punitive damages.

That is an issue to be decided by a jury at trial. Rather, plaintiff is required to allege in his complaint the “ultimate facts” upon which his claim for punitive damages is based. ( Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 279, fn 4,) Further, less specificity is required in pleading “when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party.” ( Committee on Children’s Television, Inc.v.

General Foods Corp.
1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216-217.) When the allegations of the complaint are considered as a whole – as they must be – even seemingly “conclusory” language may properly support recovery of punitive damages.
Perkins v.
Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) If you elect to conduct discovery and later amend the complaint to allege punitive damages, bear in mind that courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.

( Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.4th 739, 761; Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a)(1).) Judicial policy so strongly favors resolution of all disputed matters on the merits, courts usually exercise their discretion liberally to permit amendment. ( Nestle v.

Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) The policy is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. ( Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) Thus, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint alleging punitive damages will almost certainly be granted by the court, and the sufficiency of the punitive damage allegations in the amended complaint will then be tested by defendant’s motion to strike the punitive damage allegations from plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Punitive damages: Requisite proof “Malice” means “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff (i.e., intentional tort), or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (non-intentional tort).

Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1); College Hospital, Inc.v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) To establish malice plaintiff need not prove an evil mental intent or motive on the part of the defendant. Plaintiff need only establish (by clear and convincing evidence) that the defendant intended the consequences that were substantially certain to occur from his or her wrongful conduct.

( Schroeder v. Auto Driveway Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 908, 922; George F. Hillenbrand, Inc.v. Insurance Co. of North America (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 784, 816.) Evidence of negligence, gross negligence, or even recklessness is not sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

Lackner v.
North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-1211; Bell v.
Sharp Cabrillo Hospital (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1044.) Thus, plaintiff must prove (again, by clear and convincing evidence) that the defendant was: (1 ) aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct; and (2) that with such awareness defendant willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.

( Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 89; Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc. / Bendix Safety Restraints Division (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 48, 61.) It need not be proven that the defendant acted with an awareness of probable harm to a particular victim (i.e., the plaintiff).

It is sufficient that the defendant knew his or her conduct would probably have injurious consequences to someone.
Ramona Manor Convalescent Hospital v.
Care Enterprises (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1133.) Thus, intoxicated drivers may be held liable for punitive damages despite not knowing the specific identity of their victim ( Taylor v.

Superior Court, supra ), and manufacturers may bear liability for punitive damages in product-liability actions upon a showing of willful and conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences of the products placed by them into the stream of commerce.

Hilliard v.A.H.
Robins Co.
1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392 ; West v.
Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc,
1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 831, 867-871.) “Oppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ.
Code, § 3294, subd.(c)(2).) Although malice requires a showing of willful conscious disregard, “oppression” does not require willful behavior.

( Major v. Western Home Insurance Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1225-1226.) “Fraud” for purposes of a punitive damages award means “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ.

Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).) Under the provisions of Civil Code section 3294, subd. (b), an employer may be found liable for punitive damages upon any of three separate bases: (1) when an employee was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer with advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, (2) when an employee was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, and the employer authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or (3) when the employer was itself guilty of the oppression, fraud or malice.

Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) further provides that: “With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” A corporate employee’s status as a “managing agent” under Civil Code section 3294(b) does not turn on his or her precise position in the corporate hierarchy, or upon whether he or she has authority to hire or fire other employees.

The question is whether the employee exercises substantial independent authority and judgment over decisions that ultimately contribute to corporate policy. Plaintiff must show that “the employee exercised substantial authority over significant aspects of a corporation’s business.” ( White v. Ultramar, Inc.

(1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 576-577.) Other burdens of proof may apply if punitive damages are sought under specific statutory authorization. For example, under the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C § 1983) punitive damages are recoverable against an individual “when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” ( Smith v.

Wade (1983) 461 US 30, 56; Dang v.
Cross (9th Cir.2005) 422 F3d 800, 806.) Clear and convincing evidence Plaintiff must prove a statutory basis for recovery of punitive damages (malice, oppression or fraud) by “clear and convincing evidence.” (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd.
A); Westrec Marina Management, Inc.v.

Jardine Insurance Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1050.) Interestingly, Civil Code section 3294 does not define the “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof. Case law has determined that “clear and convincing” means a standard higher than “preponderance of the evidence,” but not as high as the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, case law has found “clear and convincing” to be synonymous with a “high probability” standard of proof.

In re Angelina P.
1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 919; Nevarrez v.
San Marino Skilled Nursing & Wellness Center (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1355.) The “high probability” standard is now reflected in CACI 201 which states, in part, that: “Certain facts must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher burden of proofthe party must persuade you that it is highly probable that the fact is true.” Importantly, whether plaintiff’s evidence at trial has proven malice, oppression or fraud to the standard of “clear and convincing” is for the jury to decide.

Thus, a defense motion for nonsuit or directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages may be granted only where the trial court determines that no reasonable jury could find plaintiff’s evidence to be clear and convincing. ( American Airlines, Inc.v.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1048-1054; Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc./ Bendix Safety Restraints Division, supra, at 24 Cal.App.4th 61.) Illustrative cases In practice, preparing and trying a case that results in an award of punitive damages presents unique challenges and requires precision in both the pleading and evidentiary aspects of the case.

In my personal experience, several such cases come immediately to mind. Zerby v. City of Long Beach (USDC Case No. SACV 11-00536-AG-RNBx). On December 12, 2010, the decedent Douglas Zerby was seated on the landing of an exterior stairway with a water nozzle in his hand waiting for the arrival of a friend.

At the time Mr.
Zerby was highly intoxicated, having a,44 blood alcohol content.
Long Beach police officers were called to the scene by a neighbor who mistook the water nozzle for a handgun.
Prior to the fatal shooting, the Long Beach police officers were on scene for approximately seven minutes.
Amazingly, the officers never announced their presence, never gave any verbal commands to Mr.

Zerby, and were concealed behind barriers at all times before the shooting. There was every reasonable inference that Mr. Zerby did not even know the police officers were present. When Mr. Zerby inadvertently lifted the water nozzle upward, one of the police officers fired at Mr.

Zerby from behind a barrier – striking Mr. Zerby and setting off a chain reaction of gunshots from another officer. Although the first shot did not kill Mr. Zerby, he was struck by multiple police officer bullets and expired at the scene. At trial the jury found the City of Long Beach and two of the police officers to bear liability, and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $6.5 million in favor of Mr.

Zerby’s heirs. The jury also found that plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of punitive damages against two of the police officers involved in the shooting. vidence of the defendant’s financial condition is required to establish the defendant’s ability to pay an award of punitive damages.

Adams, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p.108) ‘The ultimately proper level of punitive damages is an amount not so low that the defendant can absorb it with little or no discomfort, nor so high that it destroys, annihilates, or cripples the defendant.’ ( Rufo v.
Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 621-622)”).
Further, it is plaintiff who bears the burden of producing evidence of the defendant’s financial condition to the jury for purposes of determining an amount of punitive damages.

Given these considerations, in Zerby, it was more beneficial to plaintiffs to accept a moderate punitive-damage settlement with the two police officers than it would have been to present their personal asset information to the jury during a second phase of the trial to determine the amount of punitive damages.

Castillo v.
Orman Center Enterprises, Inc,: Four days before Christmas in 2000, Quantez Castillo, then age 9, attempted to warm his hands late at night by holding them over the open flame on the kitchen stove.
His mother, then asleep in the bedroom with her boyfriend, had left the flame of the stove turned on in an effort to warm the apartment.

The flame ignited Quantez’s pajamas and he suffered severe burns to his right arm, shoulder and back. At trial, the evidence established that the landlord had failed to connect the wall heater in the apartment to the gas line, and that the landlord had ignored the repeated requests by Quantez’s mother for months that he provide heat in the apartment.

The defendant landlord owned many apartment buildings in Los Angeles.
The jury returned compensatory damages in the amount of $3.2 million and punitive damages in the amount of $3 million.
Punitive damages: Constitutional considerations The U.S.
Supreme Court has rejected any notion that punitive damages awards are inherently unconstitutional, holding that an initial determination by a jury instructed to consider the gravity of the wrong and the need to deter similar wrongful conduct, followed by trial and appellate court review for reasonableness is not “so inherently unfair as to deny due process and be per se unconstitutional,” (Emphasis in original) ( Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.v.

Haslip (1991) 499 US 1, 17; BMW of North America, Inc.v. Gore (1996) 517 US 559, 568.,) The U.S. Supreme Court has, however, held that a punitive award is arbitrary – and violates due process – where it is “grossly excessive” in relation to a state’s legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence.

( BMW of North America, Inc.v. Gore, supra, 517 US at 568; State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.Co.v. Campbell (2003) 538 US 408, 416-417; Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.v. Haslip, supra, 499 US at 17,) The U.S. Supreme Court has enumerated three tests for determining whether the amount of a punitive damages award is “grossly excessive.” ( BMW of North America, Inc.v.

Gore, supra; State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.v. Campbell, supra ; Cooper Industries, Inc.v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001) 532 US 424, 440.) In State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. at p.418, the California Supreme Court articulated ‘three guideposts’ for courts reviewing punitive damages: “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.” Of the three guideposts that the high court outlined in State Farm, the most important is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.

On this question, the high court instructed courts to consider whether ” the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.” ( Id.

at p.419.) The application of these standards to actual punitive damage awards tends to distill down to an analysis of the “ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages.” On this issue the U.S. Supreme Court seems to want it both ways. On one hand, the U.S.

Supreme Court has rejected any “bright-line ratio” and has stated that, “we have consistently rejected the notion that the constitutional line is marked by a simple mathematical formula.” ( BMW of North America, Inc.v. Gore, supra, 517 US at 582.) On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.

Co.v. Campbell, supra, 538 US at 425, that: “Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” California rulings This fundamental perspective seems to have been accepted by the California Supreme Court.

Simon v.
San Paolo U.S.
Holding Co., Inc,
2005) 35 Cal.4th 1159, 1182,) More recently, it was observed in Pfeifer v.
John Crane, Inc.
2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1311-1312, that California courts have adopted a broad range of permissible ratios, from 1-to-1 to 16-to-1.
A brief survey of California cases tends to confirm this general principle.

Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc, (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 543, 550-556 ; Boeken v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1690-1704 ; Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 738, 755-764, disapproved on another ground in Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.

2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191, 1205 ; Bankhead v.
ArvinMeritor (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68, 85-86,) Thus, California Appellate Courts remain willing to affirm a “a broad range of permissible ratios” between punitive damage and compensatory damage awards, so long as the proven conduct of the defendant is sufficiently reprehensible.

Of course, an occasional case of punitive damages “run wild” captures the attention of the public and the legal community. For example, in 2013, a Florida jury awarded punitive damages in the sum of $23.6 billion dollars against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and in favor of Cynthia Robinson whose husband Michael chain smoked Kool cigarettes from age 13 until the time of his death from lung cancer at age 36.

What are damages in civil law?

Damages is a sum of money which is awarded by the courts for the purpose of replacing the monetary value of property or rights which have been lost or damaged, or to cover expenses, loss, pain and suffering relating to a victim’s injury or death. Damages is a form of compensation.

What does property damage coverage mean example?

If you’re responsible for an accident, Property Damage Coverage will take care of the cost of repairing or replacing another person’s property. This typically means damage to someone else’s car, but it could apply to any other type of property you damage in an accident.

What does damage mean in legal terms?

In civil cases, damages are the remedy that a party requests the court award in order to try to make the injured party whole. Typically damage awards are in the form of monetary compensation to the harmed party. Damages are imposed if the court finds that a party breached a duty under contract or violated some right.

The sum of money included in the damages can be compensatory damages that are calculated based on the harmed party’s actual loses, or punitive damages intended to punish the wrongdoer.
The term ” actual damages ” is synonymous with compensatory damages and excludes punitive damages.
In a contract case, punitive damages are generally not awarded.

This is because the law generally recognizes that parties should be allowed to breach a contract where it would be more economically efficient to do so. Thus, the law does not punish a party for breach, it simply seeks to put the non-breaching party back into a fair position.

This can mean the court awards the non-breaching party either expectancy damages which is what the party expected to receive under the contract, reliance damages which is the economic position the party would have been in had they not relied on the contract, or restitution which is an equitable remedy to take away profits from the party that breached.

There are also liquidated damages which contract parties can agree to in advance in the event of breach. In contract law, if a court determines that damages will not properly compensate the injured party, the court may choose to award specific performance,

In a tort case, the injured party can receive compensatory damages to compensate for all types of losses, including direct costs for medical car, property damage, or lost wages. It can also include indirect costs such as compensating for pain and suffering or inconvenience. When a tort wrongdoer was willfully reckless or the harm was particularly bad, the court may award punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

For certain types of injuries, statutes provide that successful parties should receive some multiple of their “actual damages” – e.g., treble damages,

What are the types of damage?

Types of Damages – There are six different types of damages: compensatory, incidental, consequential, nominal, liquidated, and (sometimes) punitive.

What is serious property damage?

Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production,B.
A user may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause pretreatment standards or requirements to be violated, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation,
These bypasses are not subject to the provision of paragraphs (C) and (D) of this section,C.

A written submission shall also be provided within five (5) days of the time the user becomes aware of the bypass.
The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and if the bypass has not bee corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue ; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass.