to deter others from similar conduct.’ ” Rochan, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 797, 610 N.E.2d at 693, quoting Hazelwood v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 114 Ill. App. 3d 703, 712, 450 N.E.2d 1199, 1207 (1983). Herman argues that the punitive damages award is not proportional to the compensatory damages awarded each of the Fords. However, we have previously held that the amount of punitive damages awarded does not need to be proportional, especially when a proportional punitive damages award with a small compensatory damages award would do little to deter the particular defendant or others from “engaging in the same reprehensible pattern of conduct in the future.” Tague v. Molitor Motor Co., 139 Ill. App. 3d 313, 318, 487 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1985); see also Deal, 127 Ill. 2d at 204, 537 N.E.2d at 272 (<HOLDING>). Herman also argues that the punitive damages
holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages holding that evidence of a defendants financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages holding that proportionality is not the touchstone for a punitive damages award