What usually happens to punitive damages as they ascend through higher courts?

Punitive damages are awarded in civil lawsuits as a way to punish the defendant for particularly harmful behavior and deter similar actions in the future. When these cases ascend through higher courts, it is common for judges to scrutinize the amount awarded by juries. This scrutiny often leads to a reduction in the punitive damages initially granted, especially if they are deemed excessive or disproportionate to the actual harm suffered. Courts typically focus on ensuring that punitive damages are reasonable compared to the compensatory damages and the severity of the misconduct.

Higher courts may apply legal standards and precedents that guide them in evaluating the appropriateness of punitive damages, leading to a tendency to lower them to align with established norms and to avoid unconstitutional excessive fines. This judicial review process helps maintain fairness and consistency in the awards made in civil cases. Therefore, the assertion that punitive damages are almost always reduced by judges as cases progress through the court system is supported by significant legal principles and case law.