Punitive damages are supposed to measured in a way that sufficiently punishes and deters the defendant without being ruinous: the defendant's wealth IS a factor taken into consideration, but in California it's usually capped at 10% of the defendant's total wealth. They also must be proportional to the harm inflicted. The jury here appears to have focused almost exclusively on the punish-and-deter angle.

No matter the case or the harm that was caused, that's just an unreal amount of money and should never ever have been awarded, ever, if only to make it clear such insanely outrageous claims can/will never be taken seriously nor accepted. Seriously, this is just so insane it's beyond crazy.

Aren't there statutory limits on punitive damages?

Edit: ah, noname clarified to an extent, though Florida may be different.

Yeah I read it yesterday and couldn't believe it.

no way it stands up. appeals will deduce this a lot. I don't really get it. He as been dead for like 18 years. The most she should get in court is what projects to be the MAX he would have earned in a normal life span, so depending on what his profession was and what not maybe 2 mil. If he was a lawyer or something, okay maybe a bit more. I am sure she misses him and all still, but now she has to be over his death.