Opinion ID: 2067270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Punitive Damages Awards Where Respectable Medical Opinion is Divided

Text: Appellees have also argued that the trial court's refusal to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury was proper because at the time of appellant's exposure to asbestos, medical and scientific authorities were in strong disagreement as to the harmfulness of such exposure. Brief for Appellees at 25. The trial court justified its ruling on this basis. Thus it said: We find that there was no evidence that the risk was fully realized by the defendants; even the scientific community did not appreciate the risk involved. Slip op. at 34. Although we express no opinion as to whether the record supports the trial court's finding that the scientific community did not appreciate the risk involved, we do disagree with the premise that unanimity among experts as to the hazards posed to insulation workers by asbestos exposure is a prerequisite to a finding that appellees acted recklessly in failing to warn of the health hazards that might be caused by exposure to asbestos. We believe, to the contrary, that evidence showing that appellees were aware of respectable medical authority to the effect that exposure to asbestos posed serious health hazards, and yet failed to warn potential users accordingly, might be sufficient to warrant submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, even if there was also evidence showing that appellees were simultaneously aware of respectable medical opinion to the contrary. This view comports with decided cases. In Moran v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., supra , the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a punitive damages award, despite the fact that [c]ross examination of . . . witnesses [who testified that Johns-Manville was aware of risks to insulation workers well before it began to place warning labels on products] tended to show that causal connections between lung cancer and use of asbestos products were not established with any certainty before Johns-Manville began using warning labels. Id. at 814. See also Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 418 Pa. 567, 212 A.2d 440 (1965) (Although defendant could not tell with certainty whether the object he saw lying on the train tracks was a person, his failure to take precaution against possibility that object was a person by stopping the train was reckless). In Moran the court held that despite evidence that medical opinion regarding the effects of asbestos exposure was not unanimous, the jury could properly have found on the basis of appellant's awareness of medical opinion that asbestos exposure could cause chronic debilitating diseases, and that when combined with the fact that the placement of warning labels on insulation products would not have been onerous, appellant's indifference to consumers' risks [had been] `flagrant.' Id. at 816. Also to be noted is Section 908(2) of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS (1979), which provides: Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. The failure to take precautions urged by respectable medical authority, even when medical opinion is not unanimous, may be evidence of reckless indifference to the rights of others, pertinent to an appraisal of the character of the defendant's act. Accordingly, we hold that the introduction on remand of evidence that respectable medical authority was divided on the effects upon insulation workers of asbestos exposure at the time of appellant's exposure will not necessarily preclude the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury.