Opinion ID: 2796489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Law Principles

Text: A punitive damages award is an extraordinary remedy and is only imposed when “the defendant’s wrongdoing has been intentional and deliberate, and has the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” Masaki v. Gen. Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 6, 780 P.2d 566, 570 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The fundamental purpose of punitive 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  damages is to “punish[] the defendant for aggravated misconduct and [to] deter[] the defendant and others from engaging in like conduct in the future.” Id. at 12, 780 P.2d at 573; see also, Kang, 59 Haw. at 660, 578 P.2d at 291; Howell, 40 Haw. Terr. at 499. “In such circumstances, utilizing the civil law to shape social behavior is both logical and desirable.” Id. at 9, 780 P.2d at 571 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because punitive sanctions are quasi-criminal in nature, Hawai#i imposes special safeguards to ensure that a defendant is neither unfairly stigmatized nor arbitrarily deprived of his or her property. See Masaki, 71 Haw. at 6, 780 P.2d at 570. Accordingly, this court has imposed a clear and convincing standard of proof, the highest civil standard of proof, for all punitive damage claims. Id. at 16, 708 P.2d at 575. The plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has acted wantonly or oppressively or with such malice as implies a spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations, or where there has been some willful misconduct or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of indifference to consequences. Id. at 16-17, 780 P.2d at 575. The clear and convincing evidence standard requires “that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established, and requires the existence of a fact be highly probable.” Id. at 15, 780 P.2d at 574. That 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  standard was applied in this case.12 Once a punitive damages award has been rendered, the magnitude of the award is subject to review at the trial court level as well as appellate review. On appeal, we analyze whether the damages awarded by the jury were “‘palpably not supported by the evidence, or so excessive and outrageous when considered with the circumstances of the case as to demonstrate that the jury in 12 Jury instructions serve as an additional safeguard with respect to the magnitude of a punitive award. In this case, the court instructed the jury as follows: The proper measure of punitive damages is 1, the degree of intentional, willful, wanton, oppressive, or malicious conduct; 2, the amount of money required to punish the defendant, considering his financial condition, without considering the value of either Honolulu Park Place or the Kaneohe property; and 3, the reasonable and necessary expense of litigation, including attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and the inconvenience and time involved in preparing for trial. Although this instruction properly stated the law, more explicit jury instructions would provide an additional procedural safeguard. For example, Illinois Pattern Civil Jury Instruction 35.00 (2007) provides: In arriving at your decision as to the amount of punitive damages, you should consider the following three questions. The first question is the most important to determine the amount of punitive damages: 1. How reprehensible was [(defendant’s name)] conduct? On this subject, you should consider the following: a) The facts and circumstances of defendant’s conduct; b) The [financial] vulnerability of the plaintiff; c) The duration of the misconduct; d) The frequency of defendant’s misconduct; e) Whether the harm was physical as opposed to economic; f) Whether defendant tried to conceal the misconduct; g) [other] 2. What actual and potential harm did defendant’s conduct cause to the plaintiff in this case? 3. What amount of money is necessary to punish defendant and discourage defendant and others from future wrongful conduct [in light of defendant’s financial condition]? 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  assessing damages acted against rules of law or suffered their passions or prejudices to mislead them.’” Kang, 59 Haw. at 663, 578 P.2d at 292 (quoting Vasconcellos v. Juarez, 37 Haw. Terr. 364, 366 (1946)).