The punitive damages standard set forth by this
Court in TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources
Corp., 509 U.S. 448 (1993) and BMW of N. Am., Inc. v.
Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) included consideration of the
potential harm to others. However, in Philip Morris
USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 355 (2007), this Court
noted it had not yet "decide[d] the question of harm to
others" and "the [Gore] opinion appears to have left the
question open."

In the present case, the district court applied
an incorrect punitive damages standard failing to
consider the potential harm to others and overturned
an award that was fully supported under the law.
The district court ordered a new trial on damages
without issuing a remittitur, and it excluded evidence
at retrial relevant to punitive damages.

The questions presented are:

1. Should the potential harm to others be
considered when reviewing the reasonableness
of a punitive damages award under the Due
Process Clause?

2. In the alternative, does the common law or
Seventh Amendment require a trial court to
issue a remittitur prior to ordering a new trial
on damages where no evidence of passion or
prejudice by the jury exists?

3. In the alternative, is evidence that a
retaliation is part of a larger scheme to
suppress safety complaints relevant to the
issue of punitive damages?

Should the potential harm to others be considered when reviewing the reasonableness of a punitive-damages award under the Due-Process-Clause