Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 52
One of these, without specifically discussing the defendant's financial
condition, affirmed a punitive damage award of $ 5 million, concluding
it did
not indicate jury passion or prejudice and was not unreasonable
considering the
character of the wrong. ( Armstrong v. Randle (Tex. Ct. App. 1994) 881
S.W.2d
53, 59.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
Simpson does not address the first two factors, only the third, the
relationship of the amount of punitive damages to his wealth. He relies
on the
language in Adams v. Murakami, supra, 54 Cal. 3d 105, 111, that, "Even
if an
award is entirely reasonable [**106] in light of the [first] two
factors . .
.,the award can be so disproportionate to the defendant's ability to
pay that
the award is excessive for that reason alone." He contends the award of
$ 25