PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.4785 / 105th Congress

Fairness in Punitive Damage Awards Act

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 10, 1998

Fairness in Punitive Damage Awards Act - Limits punitive damage awards in civil actions brought in Federal or State court that affect interstate commerce or implicate rights or interests that may be protected by the Congress under the 14th Amendment where such damages are sought under any theory for harm. Permits punitive damages, to the extent permitted by applicable State law, to be awarded against a person in such an action only if the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that conduct of such person was carried out with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of others and was the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject of the action. Makes this Act inapplicable to any person in such action if the misconduct for which punitive damages are awarded: (1) caused harm that resulted in death, serious and permanent physical scarring or disfigurement, loss of a limb or organ, or serious and permanent physical impairment of an important bodily function; (2) occurred at a time when the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or any drug that may not lawfully be sold without a prescription or had been taken by the defendant other than in accordance with the terms of a lawful prescription, and if the defendant so being under the influence caused the harm for which the civil action was brought; or (3) constitutes a crime of violence, an act of terrorism, a hate crime, or a felony sexual offense, for which the defendant has been convicted in any court. (Sec. 5) Limits the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded to a claimant in any civil action that is subject to this Act: (1) to the greater of three times the amount awarded for economic loss or $250,000; or (2) for an individual whose net worth does not exceed $500,000 or against an owner of an unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization that has fewer than 25 full-time employees, to the lesser of three times the amount awarded for economic loss or $250,000. Directs that these limitations be applied by the court and not be disclosed to the jury. Directs the trier of fact, at the request of any party in such an action, to consider in a separate proceeding, held subsequent to the determination of the amount of compensatory damages, whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the amount thereof. Specifies that if any party requests a separate proceeding, in a proceeding to determine whether the claimant may be awarded compensatory damages, any evidence, argument, or contention that is relevant only to punitive damages, as determined by applicable State law, shall be inadmissible. (Sec. 7) Denies the U.S. district courts jurisdiction pursuant to this Act based on Federal provisions regarding Federal question jurisdiction, or commerce and antitrust regulations and amount in controversy.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Hyde, Henry J. [R-IL-6] · R–IL

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  2. Introduced in House

  3. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.4785 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.4785 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.4785 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.4785 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources