In this case, plaintiff, Carol Burnett, sued the defendant, the National Enquirer, for compensatory and punitive damages as a result of an article published in defendant magazine. The article claimed that she became drunk in a public restaurant, had an argument with Henry Kissinger, and disturbed other guests. A jury awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in compensatory damages and $1.3 million as punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the amounts to $50,000 for compensatory and $750,000 for punitive damages. On appeal, the appellate court found the punitive damages still to be excessive. Defendant's net worth was estimated to be $2.6 million and its net income for the period under consideration was about $1.56 million. The court found the amount excessive. The amount of compensatory damages was upheld.
1. The award of $50,000 was for compensatory damages. Were these for general damages or special damages?
2. Why did the court reduce the amount of punitive damages? Why was the National Enquirer, as opposed to its employees, held responsible for the punitive damages?
3. Why did the plaintiff in this case recover both compensatory and punitive damages whereas the respondent in the Hustler magazine case recovered nothing?