April 6, 2007

Punitive
Damages

In Vance v. Casey’s Draft House, decided on March 13, 2007, the Superior Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the Plaintiff. The jury verdict had been appealed by the Defendants on grounds that an award of punitive damages could not be entered where the Plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence of the Defendants’ finances at trial. The Superior Court concluded that evidence of the Defendants’ finances was not a necessary prerequisite to the imposition of punitive damages, with the Superior Court affirming the awards of compensatory and punitive damages.

The case arose as a result of the Plaintiff being injured in a bar fight with the Defendants’ bouncers as the Plaintiff attempted to enter the Defendants’ bar on his birthday.

Tthe Defendant sought a non suit against the Plaintiff on the punitive damages claim.

The Plaintiffs rested without presenting evidence as to the Defendants’ finances. After both parties had finished their closing arguments, and before the jury was charged by the judge, the Defendants sought a non suit against the Plaintiff on the punitive damages claim. The motion was denied by the trial court, with the jury then awarding compensatory damages, loss of consortium damages, and punitive damages against the bar, with punitives also being awarded individually against the two bouncers.

Seeking post-trial relief, the Defendants’ motion was denied by the trial court, with the Defendants filing an appeal to the Superior Court in reliance upon Pennsylvania’s adoption of Section 908 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Section 908 of the Restatement (Second) Torts sets forth as follows:

“Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the Defendant’s evil motive, or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the Defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm to the Plaintiff that the Defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the Defendant”.

Defendants argued that the jury had to consider evidence of the Defendants’ wealth.

The Defendants argued, in their appeal to the Superior Court, that the jury had to consider evidence of the Defendants’ wealth before it could award punitive damages, relying upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling in Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, 555 A. 2nd 800 (Pa. 1989).

The Superior Court rejected that argument, holding that the Defendants’ wealth was not a relevant consideration for the jury in assessing punitive damages to punish a tortfeasor for outrageous conduct, and to deter similar conduct in the future. The Superior Court held that the Kirkbride did not stand for the proposition that a jury can not impose punitive damages without evidence of record pertaining to the Defendants’ finances or wealth.

Rather, the Superior Court held that the decision to award punitive damages is principally a decision that flows from a jury’s determination as to whether the Defendants’ conduct was outrageous. The Vance ruling rejected the Defendants’ position that wealth is a necessary prerequisite to awarding punitive damages, holding that the jury’s determination of punitive damages was based on conduct, not finances.

Practical Tips

Focus on the act or conduct allegedly giving rise to the claim, and not on the Defendants’ financial posture.

In analyzing the potential liability for punitive damages, focus on the act or conduct allegedly giving rise to the claim, and not on the Defendants’ financial posture, as punitive damages are intended to serve two public policy purposes, one being to punish for heinous acts, with the second being to deter similar conduct in the future.

Focus attention on the act or motive, and not on the ability to pay.

(Back to top)