Opinion ID: 1927554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Quality of Proof Required

Text: Since awarding punitive damages in a products-liability case has such serious consequences, the burden of proof must reflect the gravity of the decision. Standards of proof are devices of the law that guarantee that the public will have confidence in the integrity of the decision. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 757, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1396, 71 L.Ed. 2d 599, 609 (1982). In assessing exemplary damages, common-law juries are asked to fulfill one of the most solemn roles of society, that of punishing its members. [P]articularly careful scrutiny is warranted when punitive damages are allowed. Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 378 F. 2d 832, 852 (2d Cir.1967). Three jurisdictions have recently modified their punitive damages laws to provide that punitive damages may be awarded only if the plaintiff has proved by `clear and convincing evidence' that the defendant acted with the requisite culpability.    [Another state] requires that plaintiffs prove their punitive damages claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Wheeler, The Constitutional Case for Reforming Punitive Damages Procedures, 69 Va.L.Rev. 269, 296-97 (1983) (footnotes omitted). I believe that a party seeking punitive damages in this context should prove the requisite `outrageous' conduct by clear and convincing proof. Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., 717 F. 2d 828, 839 (3d Cir.1983) (interpreting Virgin Islands law in absence of any existing precedent); accord Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 2d 260, 297, 294 N.W. 2d 437, 457 (1980); Model Uniform Prod. Liab. Act § 120(A), discussed in 44 Fed.Reg. 62,748 (1979). If society is to have confidence that under the circumstances the sanction is warranted, this standard of proof is necessary in awarding punitive damages.