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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 8. 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?