Kemezy v. Peters - 79 F.3d 33 (7th Cir. 1996)

Rule:

Plaintiffs seeking punitive damages need not put in evidence of the defendant's net worth. When the defendant is to be fully indemnified, such evidence, far from being required, is inadmissible. Thus, in some cases it is inadmissible, but in no cases is it required.

Facts:

Jeffrey Kemezy sued a Muncie, Indiana policeman named James Peters under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Peters had wantonly beaten him with the officer's nightstick in an altercation in a bowling alley where Peters was moonlighting as a security guard. The jury awarded Kemezy $10,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. Peters' appeal challenged only the award of punitive damages, and that on the narrowest of grounds: that it was Kemezy’s burden to introduce evidence concerning Peters’ net worth for purposes of equipping the jury with information essential to a just measurement of punitive damages.

Issue:

Did Kemezy have the burden of production to submit proof of Peters’ net worth to the jury in order to support a claim for punitive damages?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court explained that plaintiffs seeking punitive damages need not put in evidence of the defendant's net worth. When the defendant is to be fully indemnified, such evidence, far from being required, is inadmissible. Thus, in some cases it is inadmissible, but in no cases is it required. From the foregoing, the court held that Kemezy had no burden of production to submit proof of Peters’ net worth to the jury in order to support a claim for punitive damages.