Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
492 U.S. 257 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to punitive damage awards in civil cases between private parties when the government is not a party and does not receive a share of the damages.
Facts:
- Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) was a national commercial waste-disposal business operating in the Burlington, Vermont area.
- In 1980, Joseph Kelley, a former BFI district manager, started a competing waste-disposal company, Kelco Disposal, Inc.
- By 1982, Kelco had captured 43% of the Burlington market, significantly cutting into BFI's business.
- In response, BFI initiated a predatory pricing campaign with the explicit goal of driving Kelco out of business.
- A BFI regional vice president ordered his subordinate to 'Put [Kelley] out of business. Do whatever it takes. Squish him like a bug.'
- BFI then cut its prices by 40% or more for approximately six months, causing Kelco's revenues to drop 30% in the first four months.
- Kelco's attorney notified BFI that its pricing was illegal, but BFI continued the practice for several more months.
- Despite the campaign, Kelco's market share grew to 56% by 1985, the same year BFI sold its Burlington operation and left the market.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1984, Kelco Disposal, Inc. and Joseph Kelley sued Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
- The complaint alleged federal antitrust violations and state tort law claims for interference with contractual relations.
- After a trial, the jury found BFI liable on both the federal antitrust and state tort claims.
- The jury awarded Kelco $51,146 in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages.
- BFI filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur, which the District Court denied.
- BFI, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the punitive damage award was not 'constitutionally excessive.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the punitive damages issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment apply to an award of punitive damages in a civil suit between private parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not constrain an award of punitive damages in a civil suit between private parties. The primary purpose of the Eighth Amendment, as illuminated by its history, was to limit the power of the government, not to regulate disputes between private litigants. The Court's reasoning is based on several points: First, the word 'fine' at the time of the Amendment's ratification was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for an offense, not a payment to a private party. Second, the Clause's direct ancestor, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, was enacted to curb abuses by the Crown, such as imposing exorbitant fines on political enemies. This history demonstrates an exclusive focus on limiting governmental prosecutorial power. Third, petitioners' argument tracing the clause to Magna Carta's limits on 'amercements' is unpersuasive, as amercements were also payments made to the Crown, and Magna Carta was intended to limit the King's power. Therefore, because the government of Vermont neither prosecuted this action nor has a right to a share of the punitive damages award, the Eighth Amendment is not implicated.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Justice Brennan concurred, writing separately to emphasize that the Court's holding leaves open the question of whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains the imposition of punitive damages in civil cases. He expressed significant concern that juries, provided with only vague and minimal guidance, are left with unbridled discretion to impose potentially devastating punitive damage awards. This lack of clear standards raises serious questions about arbitrary government action, which is the core concern of due process, and suggests that such awards warrant close scrutiny under a due process analysis in a future case.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice O'Connor
Yes, the Excessive Fines Clause should apply to punitive damages awards in private civil litigation. Justice O'Connor dissented from the majority's Eighth Amendment holding, arguing it was not compelled by history or precedent. She asserted that punitive damages are functionally equivalent to criminal fines, serving the same purposes of punishment and deterrence, and should be considered 'private fines levied by civil juries.' Her historical analysis concluded that the term 'fine' in the Eighth Amendment derived from English law that limited all excessive monetary penalties, both civil and criminal. In her view, the identity of the recipient of the money—a private party versus the state—is irrelevant from the perspective of the defendant being punished. She would have held the Clause applicable and remanded the case for the lower court to apply a proportionality test, similar to the one used in Cruel and Unusual Punishment cases, to determine if the $6 million award was constitutionally excessive. She concurred with the majority's decision not to address the due process and federal common law claims.
Analysis:
This decision effectively closed the door on using the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause to challenge punitive damages in lawsuits between private parties. By narrowly interpreting the clause as a check only on the government's direct power to punish, the Court shifted the constitutional battleground over excessive punitive awards to the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This ruling spurred a new line of jurisprudence where future litigants, instead of arguing 'excessive fines,' would argue that massive, standardless punitive awards are fundamentally unfair and arbitrary, thus violating due process. The case solidified the distinction between constitutional limits on state action and the regulation of private civil remedies, leaving the latter primarily to state law, subject to potential future due process constraints.
Unlock the full brief for Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.