No Statutes Govern Punitive Damages, but the Idea Is Simple

Punitive damages, which jurors denied to Rodney G. King on Wednesday, are not governed by any precise federal statute but the legal philosophy behind them is straightforward.

“The general idea of punitive damages is very simple,” said USC law professor Gregory Keating. “It’s to exact an extra price from the defendant beyond what he owes the plaintiff for injuring him.”

Keating said there are two basic rationales for punitive damages: to deter repetitions of egregious conduct and to provide extra compensation for a person who has been subjected to particularly reprehensible treatment.

King had to show “by a preponderance of the evidence” that punitive damages should be awarded. The jury was instructed by federal Judge John G. Davies that it could award punitive damages only if it found that a defendant’s conduct was malicious or that a defendant acted in reckless disregard of King’s rights.

“Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring another,” Davies told the jurors.

The jury found that former Los Angeles Police Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officer Laurence M. Powell acted with malice toward King. But in an unusual decision, the jurors, acting within the discretion the law permits them, declined to give King any additional money beyond the $3.8 million in compensatory damages they awarded him last month.

In interviews with The Times, jurors explained their decision by noting the size of the compensatory award and the fact that Koon and Powell have limited financial resources and already are serving prison terms for violating King’s civil rights.

Hugh Manes, a Los Angeles civil rights lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in excessive-force cases against police officers for more than 30 years, said he thought the jurors’ decision was an anomaly.

“I have never had a case where the jury said the defendant acted with malice and then didn’t award punitive damages,” Manes said. “But then I never had a case that led to a riot or a case where the culprit officers wound up going to prison.”

Punitive damages have grown increasingly controversial in recent years. Large corporations that have been hit with big awards have attempted, often with success, to get them reduced. The corporations, however, have been unable to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to impose limits on the scope of punitive damages.

Last year, the high court ruled that juries can impose virtually unlimited damage verdicts on companies to punish them for malicious conduct or deliberate fraud, upholding a $10-million judgment that stemmed from a $19,000 land title dispute.