Case Brief
Background, issue and holding.
Background
Adams v. Murakami was a California Supreme Court case arising from a personal-injury action in which the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. No evidence of the defendant physician’s financial condition had been introduced at trial, even though the punitive-damages instruction directed the jury to consider financial condition.
The questions before the court
The Supreme Court addressed two related questions: whether meaningful evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is a prerequisite to sustaining a punitive-damages award, and, if it is, which party bears the burden of introducing that evidence.
The court’s holding
The court answered both questions in the affirmative from the plaintiff’s perspective: meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition is required, and the plaintiff bears the burden of producing it. The court reasoned that financial-condition evidence is necessary for meaningful review of whether punitive damages are excessive and for determining whether the award serves punishment and deterrence without becoming financially destructive.
Philip Kaufler’s role
The published opinion lists Philip Kaufler among counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. The linked public opinion contains the court’s complete analysis and separate opinions.
This case brief is provided for readability and general information. Follow the public opinion and related source links for the complete judicial record.