Kemezy v. Peters

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996 · Torts

Tortspunitive damagesdeterrencewealth of defendantPosnerpunitive damagesnet worthburden of production

Facts

Kemezy sued Peters, a Muncie, Indiana police officer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Peters wantonly beat him with a nightstick during an altercation in a bowling alley where Peters was working as a security guard. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Peters did not dispute liability or compensatory damages, but argued that punitive damages could not stand because Kemezy had not introduced evidence of Peters's net worth. Peters's lawyer represented without contradiction that Peters would not be indemnified for the punitive damages award.

Issue

Must a plaintiff who seeks punitive damages introduce evidence of the defendant's net worth so the jury can measure punitive damages justly? Or may punitive damages be awarded even when the plaintiff presents no wealth evidence, leaving any inability-to-pay argument to the defendant?

Rule

In the Seventh Circuit, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages has no burden of production to introduce evidence of the defendant's net worth. If the defendant claims a large punitive award would exceed his ability to pay, that is a matter for the defendant to present to the jury; and if the defendant will be indemnified, evidence of his personal poverty is inappropriate, while evidence of net worth may be inadmissible.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Milwaukee, Dana Ruiz sued Leo Mercer for an intentional battery after Mercer struck her during a dispute outside a music venue. At trial, Ruiz introduced evidence of the attack and her injuries but offered no evidence about Mercer’s income, assets, or net worth, and the jury awarded punitive damages.

Mercer moves to vacate the punitive award on the ground that Ruiz failed to present any financial evidence about him. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule adopted by the court is that the plaintiff bears no burden of production to introduce evidence of the defendant’s net worth before punitive damages may be awarded. If the defendant wants the jury to consider limited means, that is for the defendant to raise. The absence of wealth evidence does not bar punitive damages.