Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal
ArgueDate=April 18
ArgueYear=1989
DecideDate=June 26
DecideYear=1989
FullName=Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc., el al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al.
USVol=492
USPage=257
Citation=109 S.Ct. 2909; 106 L.Ed.2d 219
Prior=Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Docket=88-556
Subsequent=
Holding=Awards of punitive damages in civil cases are not subject to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines when the United States is not a party.
SCOTUS=1988-1990
Majority=Blackmun
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Scalia, Kennedy
Concurrence=Brennan
JoinConcurrence=Marshall
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=O'Connor
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Stevens
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal", 492 U.S. 257 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable fines does not apply to punitive-damage awards in civil cases when the United States is not a party.

Prior history

Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) had been the dominant provider of roll-off trash collection services in the Burlington, Vermont market since it entered the roll-off market in 1976. Joseph Kelley was a district manager for BFI until 1980, when he left to found his own company, Kelco Disposal. By 1982, Kelco had garnered over 40% of the roll-off market; in that year, BFI began a campaign of predatory pricing, which continued for several months, with the intent of driving Kelco out of the business. In 1985, BFI sold their Burlington operations to another company.

In 1984, Kelco filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont alleging that BFI had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Kelco also claimed, as an alternative state-law cause of action, that BFI interfered with its contracts with its customers. In the subsequent jury trial, BFI was found liable on both claims. In a separate one-day trial on the damages, the jury settled on compensatory damages of $51,146, and punitive damages of $6 million. The trial court then awarded Kelco treble damages and attorney's fees on ths anti-trust claim, but awarded $6,066,082.74 on the alternative state tort claim, so further action proceeded on the basis of the higher award.

BFI appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and raised the issue of the excessive fines clause. The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision on both liability and damages, finding for the sake of argument that the jury's punitive-damage award was not excessive whether or not the Eighth Amendment applied to this case. The Supreme Court granted "certiorari" to consider the specific question of whether the excessive fines clause applies to civil cases involving purely private parties. [Opinion of the court, 492 U.S. 257, 260ff.]

References

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Ghiardi |first=James D. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1990 |month= |title=Punitive Da

*cite journal |last=Petrie |first=D. B. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1990 |month= |title=The Punitive Damages and the Constitution after "Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal" |journal=Arizona State Law Journal |volume=22 |issue= |pages=739 |issn=01644297 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Sneiderman |first=S. H. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1990 |month= |title=The Future of Punitive Damages after "Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal" |journal=Ohio State Law Journal |volume=51 |issue= |pages=1031 |issn=00481572 |url= |accessdate= |quote=