Opinion ID: 1110800
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.

Text: The harm does not appear to have been the result of Shiv-Ram's intentional malice, trickery, or deceit. Campbell, 538 U.S. at 419, 123 S.Ct. at 1521. Instead, it appears to have been the result of Shiv-Ram's negligence. `Trickery and deceit' are `more reprehensible than negligence.' Gore, 517 U.S. at 576, 116 S.Ct. 1589. After thoroughly reviewing Shiv-Ram's conduct, I do not believe that its conduct was so reprehensible that it warranted a $500,000 punitive-damages award in addition to the $176,572.82 compensatory-damages award.