Opinion ID: 2633395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Robles's Punitive Damages Claim Was Properly Dismissed.

Text: Robles also argues that the superior court erred in granting Petrolane's summary judgment motion on Robles's punitive damages claim and in rejecting Robles's jury instruction on punitive damages when the issue was revisited. The superior court found that Robles failed to make the showing of reckless indifference sufficient to permit the issue to go to the jury. In reviewing grants of summary judgment, we use our independent judgment. [27] To recover punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's conduct was outrageous, such as acts done with malice, bad motives, or reckless indifference to the interests of another. [28] If there is no evidence giving rise to an inference of actual malice, or reckless indifference equivalent to actual malice, the trial court need not submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. [29] Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Robles, we conclude that a reasonable jury could not find that Petrolane and Shoreside acted out of malice or with reckless disregard of Robles's safety. Accordingly, the superior court did not err in striking Robles's claim for punitive damages. [30]