BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
- Decided
- May 28, 1996
- Docket
- 94-896
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,781 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a punitive award of $2,000,000 violated the Fourteenth Anendment in a case where BMW was found liable for economic injury of only $4,000 — Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Joseph Carlton, Intervening v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (2001)
- holding that states may not impose economic sanctions for violations of their laws with the intent of changing tortfea-sors’ lawful conduct in other states — Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter (2005)
- holding that a $2,000,000 punitive damage award was grossly excessive and therefore exceeds the constitutional limit — Shippen v. Parrott (1996)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*562] Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a “ 'grossly excessive’ ” punishment on a tortfeasor. TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 454 (1993) (and cases cited). The wrongdoing involved in this case was the decision by a national distributor of automobiles not to advise its dealers, and hence their customers, of predelivery damage to new cars when the cost of repair amounted to less than 3 percent of the car’s suggested retail price. The question presented [*563] is whether a $2 million punitive damages award to the purchaser of one of these cars exceeds the constitutional limit. t — ( In January 1990, Dr. Ira Gore, Jr. (respondent), purchased a black BMW sports sedan for $40,750.88 from an authorized BMW dealer in Birmingham, Alabama. After driving the car for approximately nine months, and without noticing any flaws in its appearance, Dr. Gore took the car to “Slick Finish,” an independent detailer, to make it look “ ‘snazzier than it normally would appear.’ ” 646 So. 2d 619, 621 (Ala. 1994). Mr. Slick, the proprietor, detected evidence that the car had been repainted.[1] Convinced that he had been cheated, Dr. Gore brought suit against petitioner BMW of North America (BMW), the American distributor of BMW automobiles.[2] Dr. Gore alleged, inter alia, that the failure to disclose that the car had been repainted constituted suppression of a material fact.[3] The complaint prayed for $500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, and costs.
At trial, BMW acknowledged that it had adopted a nationwide policy in 1983 concerning cars that were damaged in the course of manufacture or transportation. If the cost of repairing the damage exceeded 3 percent of the car’s sug [*564] gested retail price, the car was placed in company service for a period of time and then sold as used. If the repair cost did not exceed 3 percent of the suggested retail price, however, the car was sold as new without advising the dealer that any repairs had been made. Because the $601.37 cost of repainting Dr. Gore’s car was only about 1.5 percent of its suggested retail price, BMW did not disclose the damage or repair to the Birmingham dealer.
Statutes cited
- 21 U.S.C. § 343
- 15 U.S.C. § 1604
- 15 U.S.C. § 781-78m
- 15 U.S.C. § 1333
- 27 U.S.C. § 215
- 15 U.S.C. § 15
- 18 U.S.C. § 1964
- 15 U.S.C. § 1117
- 35 U.S.C. § 284
Cite this
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.