Rufo v. OJ Simpson - Right Of Publicity

Page 55
PAGE 39
86 Cal. App. 4th 573, *625; 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 41, **109;
103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, ***529; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 759
v. Springer, supra, 43 Cal. App. 4th 1525, the defendant doctor
misrepresented
to patients the effectiveness or legality of a surgical procedure. The
punitive
damages award of $ 200,000 was 23 percent of the net worth of the
doctor and his
wife. The court affirmed, noting that the award still "left them with $
666,000,
almost 77 percent of their demonstrated net worth." ( Id. at p. 1540.)
Here the
fact that the punitive damages award technically exceeds net worth is
not
controlling, because in light of the exempt nature of a significant
part of his
wealth, Simpson will not be destroyed by the award. Considering all the
factors,
the punitive damages award, "in light of the defendant's wealth and the
gravity
of the particular act," does not exceed "the level necessary to
properly punish
and deter." ( Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal. 3d at p.
928.)
[*626]
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, J.
HASTINGS, J.