SHOULD MY DEFECTIVE DANGEROUS PRODUCT CASE REQUEST PUNITIVE DAMAGES TO PUNISH THE MANUFACTURER?

Dangerous products cause accidents that harm Americans every day.  Manufacturers fall “in love” with their own designs and fail to see how their product will injure or kill their customers.  Instead, manufacturers blame the victim.  Corporations ignore notices they have sold a dangerous product to an innocent customer.  Too often, when a manufacturer becomes aware that its creation is dangerous, the company attempts to hide the evidence.  Corporations too often do not warn the users of their products of hidden dangers that injure and kill.

The Benefit of Defective Product Lawsuits

Lawsuits often are necessary to receive compensation for injury and death because of defective products.  Punitive damages to punish the manufacturer are often not considered.  This “extreme” accusation is often appropriate but not used.  Defective product claims benefit society by motivating those that design, test, and manufacture to be more diligent in preventing personal injury and wrongful death.  This article teaches when punitive damages are appropriate.

The Benefit of Punitive Damages

Punitive damages were created to benefit society.  They are a means of taking money from a defendant who has harmed or killed by their outrageous conduct or complete indifference to the safety of others.  In this manner, society benefits from safer products.  Innocent victims benefit by warnings that put them on notice of the dangers of deadly products.

Challenges to Winning Punitive Damages

There are many challenges to winning punitive damages claim from an injury accident.  Courts are reluctant to approve punitive damages.  This is because of their unusual and rare use.  This is also because of the difficult legal standard to prove punitive damages.

A second challenge is when corporations hide the evidence of their own wrong-doing.  When evidence is thin, passing the legal test for punitive damages is difficult.  Third, the accusation of punitive damages adds complexity to already complex cases.  Many lawyers are unable to manage this added complexity.  Other lawyers do not bring the claim because of ignorance of punitive damages law.  Still other lawyers do not bring punitive damages claims because they are uncomfortable with litigation of the punitive damages issue because of inexperience.  Fifth, the punitive damages claim can be a distraction from other necessary elements in a case, if the punitive damages claim will not proceed to the jury.  These five barriers to the bringing of punitive damage claims in accident injury cases makes them rare.

The Test to Win Punitive Damages

The test for a punitive damages claim in an injury accident is as follows:

Clear and convincing evidence is needed so that a reasonable jury could conclude that it was highly probably that the defendant’s conduct was recklessly indifferent.

In a defective product case, the following test is often used:

1. Did the manufacturer or corporation place the defective product into commerce?
2. Is the product unreasonably dangerous?
3. Did the manufacturer have actual knowledge of the defective?
4. Did the defendant consciously disregard the safety of others?

Clear and Convincing; Not Just More Likely Than Not

Ordinarily, a more likely than not or greater than 50% likelihood is standard for civil cases.  Punitive Damages evidence must past a heightened test of being both clear and convincing.  This clear and convincing evidence standard is a difficult one to pass.

The heightened clear and convincing evidence also adds difficulty to other case aspects.  This has been discussed in detail in cases such as Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp., 975 S.W.2d 155, 164-65 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).  The courts require evidence that the defendant showed a “complete indifference or conscious disregard of the safety of others.”  See Barnett v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 963 S.W.2d 639, 659 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). In Barnett, the court discussed in detail the various standards and the differences between punitive damages, strict product liability lawsuits, and ordinary negligence cases.

What is Complete Indifference?

The “conscious disregard or complete indifference” standard for punitive damages in accident cases includes circumstances where the person doing the wrongful act or failing to do a proper act is “conscious from the knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and existing conditions that their conduct or failure to act will naturally and probably result in injury.”  In short, the wrongdoer does not need a specific intent to injure you or kill.  The death or injury merely needs to be the natural and probable result.

Is Proof of Evil Motive Needed?

Defendants often argue that the conduct must be outrageous and include an evil motive.  This is indeed the standard discussed in cases such as Blue v. Harrah’s North Kansas City, LLC, 170 S.W.3d 466, 477 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005).  However, the lawyer must keep in mind the phrase that follows all the evil motive discussion.

The standard includes actions that show a “reckless indifference to the rights of others.”  This “reckless indifference” language arose from a case where a person fired a pistol into a crowd.  The perpetrator did not have a specific intent to harm any particular person.  The defendant did not intend to injure or kill and lacked an evil motive.  However, it was reckless.  Firing a bullet into a crowd will naturally and probably result in injury; in spite of a lack of specific intent to kill or an evil motive.  This is the genesis of punitive damages and should be used in your case.

How Likely Was Injury?

There is a further ability to get punitive damages.  This is in cases where the defendant either knew or had reason to know there was high probability that their conduct would result in injury.  The Supreme Court of Missouri spoke about this in detail in the case of Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op., Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 160 (Mo. banc 2000).  In Lopez, the defendant’s conduct was tantamount to an intentional wrongdoing. This was because the natural and probable consequence of their conduct was injury.

In your case, the circuit court will need to determine whether your evidence (giving full credit to the jury’s right to determine witness credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw inferences from it) is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude with convincing clarity that it was highly probable that their conduct was outrageous because of reckless indifference. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

What is the Benefit of Claiming Punitive Damages?

I encourage you to go through the full analysis of punitive damages for the evidence in your case.  There are many benefits to bringing punitive damages in the matter.  It increases the likelihood of settlement.  It increases the value of cases.  It increases the willingness of defendant to become reasonable.  It allows added flexibility during trial.  It will increase the chances that you will have reasonable value for your case.

Most importantly, punitive damages are is the only real means of convincing indifferent manufacturers and corporations to stop harming innocent victims and change the way in which they do business.  Punitive damages are a real opportunity for you to benefit society.