New Hampshire
How BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
New Hampshire courts follow a reasonableness standard in assessing punitive damages, similar to the federal approach articulated in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore. However, New Hampshire emphasizes the need for a clear showing of a substantial relation between the harm and the punitive damages awarded.
In New Hampshire, punitive damages may be awarded if the defendant's conduct is found to be willful, wanton, or grossly negligent, but they must bear a reasonable relationship to the harm caused.
The court held that a punitive damages award must be proportional to the harm and reflect a sufficient governmental interest.
The court indicated that punitive damages should serve the purpose of deterrence and should not be disproportionate to actual damages.
Punitive damages may only be awarded in cases of egregious misconduct, affirming a stricter interpretation than some other jurisdictions.
New Hampshire’s approach aligns with the federal standard established in BMW v. Gore but places greater emphasis on the necessity of proportionality and the relationship between the punitive damages awarded and the actual harm. This may result in more stringent limitations on punitive damages when compared to other states that apply a more lenient standard.
Understanding the applicability of punitive damages, including their proportionality to the harm inflicted, is crucial for the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in tort law questions.