Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable fines does not apply to punitive-damage awards in civil cases when the United States is not a party.
| Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 18, 1989 Decided June 26, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc., el al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al. |
| Docket no. | 88-556 |
| Citations | 492 U.S. 257 (more) 109 S. Ct. 2909; 106 L. Ed. 2d 219 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Awards of punitive damages in civil cases are not subject to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines when the United States is not a party. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Stevens |
Prior history
editBrowning-Ferris Industries (BFI) had been the dominant provider of roll-off trash collection services in the Burlington, Vermont market since it entered the roll-off market in 1976. Joseph Kelley was a district manager for BFI until 1980, when he left to found his own company, Kelco Disposal. By 1982, Kelco had garnered over 40% of the roll-off market; in that year, BFI began a campaign of predatory pricing, which continued for several months, with the intent of driving Kelco out of the business. In 1985, BFI sold their Burlington operations to another company.
In 1984, Kelco filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont alleging that BFI had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Kelco also claimed, as an alternative state-law cause of action, that BFI interfered with its contracts with its customers. In the subsequent jury trial, BFI was found liable on both claims. In a separate one-day trial on the damages, the jury settled on compensatory damages of $51,146, and punitive damages of $6 million. The trial court then awarded Kelco treble damages and attorney's fees on the anti-trust claim, but awarded $6,066,082.74 on the alternative state tort claim, so further action proceeded on the basis of the higher award.
BFI appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and raised the issue of the excessive fines clause. The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision on both liability and damages, finding for the sake of argument that the jury's punitive-damage award was not excessive whether or not the Eighth Amendment applied to this case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the specific question of whether the excessive fines clause applies to civil cases involving purely private parties.[1]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Opinion of the court, 492 U.S. 257, 260ff.
Further reading
edit- Ghiardi, James D. (1990). "Punitive Damages: State Extraction Practice Is Subject to Eighth Amendment Limitations". Tort & Insurance Law Journal. 26: 119. ISSN 0885-856X.
- Petrie, D. B. (1990). "The Punitive Damages and the Constitution after Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal". Arizona State Law Journal. 22: 739. ISSN 0164-4297.
- Sneiderman, S. H. (1990). "The Future of Punitive Damages after Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal". Ohio State Law Journal. 51: 1031. ISSN 0048-1572.
External links
edit- Text of Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)