Subsequent remedial action . Likewise, defendant's evidence that it has changed the wrongful practices is admissible to show there is little or no need to deter, i.e., the defendant has learned its lesson. This only makes sense. If a plaintiff may offer evidence of subsequent remedial inaction to show a punitive award is warranted, then, based on the above authority, defendant's evidence that it has changed its practices should likewise be admissible, on the theory that this would show there is no need for deterrence. The malice, fraud or oppression must be based on the conduct that gives rise to liability for compensatory damages.
Subsequent reforms occur after the conduct that gave rise to punitive damage liability.
Evidence of other punitive awards. If in another case the defendant has already been assessed punitive damages based on the same conduct, the jury may consider whether those other punitive damages awards have sufficiently punished and made an example of the defendant. Therefore, any evidence bearing on the defendant's motive and intent should be admissible. Thus, the defendant should be permitted in the punitive phase to explain or apologize for its conduct. An apology is a form of mitigation, tending to show there is no need, or less need, to deter the defendant from like conduct in the future.