Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION On May 22, 1981, on a two-lane highway in rural Utah, Curtis Campbell attempted to pass six tractor-trailers. 1 He was not successful. When the wreckage cleared, the driver of an oncoming car was dead, the driver of one of the cars in line ahead of him was paralyzed, and the United States Supreme Court's punitive damages jurisprudence suddenly exploded. 2 In one fell swoop, the United States Supreme Court, with the aid of the bad faith of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), led by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, accomplished what the business community of this country had failed to do for many years: impose an arithmetical constitutional cap on punitive damages. Or did it? State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell 3 represents the second United States Supreme Court case to hold a punitive damage award constitutionally excessive, but the first to state a quantitative standard as a matter of substantive due process. 4 The arithmetical limit imposed represents the first standard capable of being applied by trial and appellate courts with precision. State Farm is revolutionary and is as important as any tort case in the Court's history. The Court's opinion contains sufficient qualifications to call into question the force with which the quantitative or ratio limits will be enforced by courts that actually decide subsequent cases. This article reviews the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier forays into the punitive damage morass; considers State Farm in detail; ...