Relevant circumstances in reviewing an award of punitive damages include the nature and enormity of the wrong, the financial status of the defendant, and the potential liability of the defendant. ( Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 712-13.) Those circumstances are not, however, exhaustive. It is vital that each case be carefully assessed in light of the specific facts involved, and the ultimate determination should be governed by the circumstances of each particular case.

Plaintiff argues that it is more egregious for defendant to have conducted numerous safety inspections and failed to notice the broken wire, or notice it and fail to repair it, than for defendant to fail to carry out its duty to inspect the substation. ( Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 450 N.E.2d 1199.) Although plaintiff argued to the contrary in his written brief, plaintiff conceded in oral argument that the same standard for determining the sufficiency of the evidence of wilful and wrongful conduct to support a claim for punitive damages applies in both common law actions and actions under the Public Utilities Act. Plaintiff contends, however, that this court should reinstate the punitive damages verdict in order to fulfill the public policy underlying the Act and to indicate to the utility that any failure to protect the public from the hazards of electricity will not be allowed. Defendant contends that there is no evidence whatsoever that defendant was utterly indifferent to or consciously disregarded the safety of others.

Under Illinois law, whether Western's conduct justified the imposition of punitive damages is initially a question of law. J.I. Case Co. v. McCartin-McAuliffe Plumbing Heating, 118 Ill.2d 447, 114 Ill.Dec. 105, 108, 516 N.E.2d 260, 263 (1987); Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 565, 384 N.E.2d 353, 359 (1978); Hazelwood v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 114 Ill.App.3d 703, 71 Ill.Dec. 320, 326, 450 N.E.2d 1199, 1205 (1983). If a plaintiff's factual allegations are sufficient to state a legally cognizable claim for punitive damages, submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury becomes a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Warren v. LeMay, 142 Ill.App.3d 550, 96 Ill.Dec. 418, 437, 491 N.E.2d 464, 483 (1986).

"The nature of punitive damages in Illinois is clearly singular — it is punishment for the defendant." Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 712, 450 N.E.2d 1199, 1207 (4th Dist. 1983). "That punishment is designed in turn to promote three purposes: (1) to act as retribution against the defendant; (2) to deter the defendant from committing similar wrongs in the future; and (3) to deter others from similar conduct." Hazelwood, 114 Ill. App.3d at 712, 450 N.E.2d at 1207.

Defendant asserts that there are three factors, not properly considered here, which should be considered in determining whether a punitive damages award is excessive: (1) the enormity of the wrong; (2) the financial status of the defendant; and (3) the potential liability of the defendant. ( Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 450 N.E.2d 1199; Deal v. Byford (1989), 127 Ill.2d 192, 537 N.E.2d 267.) Defendant argues that based on these factors, the awards are excessive.

................... 18 United States v. Fossler, 597 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................................. 24, 25 Frain v. Andy Frain, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 97 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ............................................................................................ 2, 4 United States v. Gabriel, 597 F.2d 95 (7th Cir. 1979) ..................................................................................................... 25 Gen. Leaseways, Inc. v. Nat'l Truck Leasing Ass'n, 830 F.2d 716 (7th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................... 24 Giles v. Wyeth, Inc., 556 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 9 Hagen v. Richardson-Merrell, 697 F. Supp. 334 (N.D. Ill. 1988) ............................................................................................ 21 Hazelwood v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R., 450 N.E.2d 1199 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) ...................................................................................... 23 Higgins v. Koch Dev. Corp., 794 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 11 Joshi v. Providence Health Sys. of Or. Corp., 149 P.3d 1164 (Or. 2006) .................................................................................................. 12, 13 SEC v. Koenig, 557 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 14 Kopczick v. Hobart Corp., 721 N.E.2d 769 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) .................................................................................. 16, 17 Lawlor v. N. Am. Corp. of Ill., 983 N.E.2d 414 (Ill. 2012) ....................................................................................................... 23 In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig., 174 F. Supp. 3d 911

In fixing the amount of punitive damages, the jury was entitled to consider defendants' wealth. Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 71 Ill.Dec. 320, 328, 450 N.E.2d 1199, 1207 (4th Dist. 1983); Fopay v. Noveroske, 31 Ill. App.3d 182, 334 N.E.2d 79, 93 (5th Dist. 1975). As the court explained in Hazelwood, "[p]unitive damages should be large enough to provide retribution and deterrence but should not be so large that the award destroys the defendant."

Indeed, Illinois courts have held that the amount of punitive damages does not have to be proportional to the amount of compensatory damages awarded. (See Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 711, 450 N.E.2d 1199, 1206.) The United States Supreme Court imposed no such requirement on the States in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip (1991), 499 U.S. 1, 113 L. Ed. 2d 1, 111 S. Ct. 1032, upon which defendant relies.

Moreover, the amount awarded to a plaintiff for punitive damages is a matter for the discretion of the jury. ( Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 711.) An award of punitive damages will not be disturbed on appeal as being excessive unless it is the result of passion, partiality, or corruption. ( Deal, 127 Ill.2d at 204.

( Eshelman v. Rawalt (1921), 298 Ill. 192, 197[, 131 N.E. 675].)'"Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 703, 450 N.E.2d 1199, developed an excellent analysis of punitive damage awards. The Hazelwood court, after analyzing punitive damage law, went on to say: "Today, the nature of punitive damages in Illinois is clearly singular — it is punishment for the defendant.