Opinion ID: 1196510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the punitive damages statute

Text: New Horizon challenges the award of punitive damages for two reasons. Its first argument requires our review of legislation which imposed a new procedure for the consideration of punitive damages. Title 23 O.S. 1991 § 9, the text of which was in effect at time of trial, provides: A. In any action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of conduct evincing a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights of another, oppression, fraud or malice, actual or presumed, the jury, in addition to the actual damages, may give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant, in an amount not exceeding the amount of actual damages awarded. Provided, however, if at the conclusion of the evidence and prior to the submission of the case to the jury, the court shall find, on the record and out of the presence of the jury, that there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of conduct evincing a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights of another, oppression, fraud or malice, actual or presumed, then the jury my give damages for the sake of example, and by way of punishing the defendant, and the percentage limitation on such damages set forth in this section shall not apply. [4] (emphasis added) We have not had the opportunity to review this amendment to Section 9. This version of the statute places a cap on the amount of punitive damages which may be awarded. Punitive damages are limited to the amount of actual damages unless the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the cap may be lifted. To lift the cap, there must be a preliminary finding by the judge that the defendant has acted with actual or presumed malice, wanton or reckless disregard of the rights of another, fraud, or oppression. This finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Only if this finding is made by the trial court can the cap on punitive damages be lifted, and the jury be permitted to consider the question of punitive damages in excess of the amount of actual damages. However, if the trial court does not find that at least one of the enumerated grounds was shown by clear and convincing evidence, the cap remains in place and the jury may award punitive damages only up to the amount of actual damages. The Tenth Circuit interpreted the amended statute in Marshall v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 874 F.2d 1373, 1382 (10th Cir.1989). The defendant in Marshall asserted that there was not sufficient evidence to meet the statutorily-imposed clear and convincing evidence standard, and that this standard applied not only to the judge's preliminary determination but also to the burden of proof required to be applied by the jury. The Tenth Circuit declined to interpret the statute that way, stating that the plain reading of the statute required only a standard of clear and convincing evidence during the preliminary determination by the judge. This initial determination is a question of law. Id. at 1384. However, once this determination is made, the case then proceeds to the jury to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard as in other civil actions of this nature. [5] On appeal the nursing home contests the trial court's preliminary finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the award of punitive damages. This threshold finding requires analysis of the evidence to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with wanton or reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, oppression, fraud, or actual or presumed malice. See 23 O.S. 1991 § 9. We agree with the Tenth Circuit that this initial determination is a question of law for the trial court. See also Jackson v. Pool Mortgage Co., 868 F.2d 1178, 1182 (10th Cir.1989) (construing Oklahoma law). The statute itself makes clear that this determination is one to be made by the judge as the decider of law. We must first look to the statute to determine exactly what must be proven by clear and convincing evidence to lift the punitive damage cap. The statute provides that there must be clear and convincing evidence of the wanton or reckless nature of the defendant's actions. Nowhere in the statute does it indicate that all or even some of the elements of the underlying cause of action must meet the clear and convincing standard. A plea for punitive damages is generally considered to be an element of recovery of the underlying cause of action; it does not constitute a separate cause of action. Richardson v. Arizona Fuels Corp., 614 P.2d 636, 640 (Utah 1980); Gould v. Starr, 558 S.W.2d 755, 770 (Mo. App. 1977), cert. denied 436 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 2236, 56 L.Ed.2d 403 (1978); Cook v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 183 S.C. 279, 190 S.E. 923, 924 (1937). The plea for punitive damages rests on the underlying claim, and if there is no recovery on the underlying claim, there can be no recovery of punitive damages. Eckels v. Traverse, 362 P.2d 680, 683 (Okla. 1961). Contractor's Safety Ass'n v. Cal. Comp. Ins. Co., 48 Cal.2d 71, 307 P.2d 626, 629 (1957). As the statute expressly states, only specific types of behavior will permit the award of punitive damages. While the prayer for punitive damages is dependent on the underlying claim, the elements of proof are different. The statute requires proof of actual or presumed malice, oppression, fraud, or wanton or reckless disregard for the another's rights. If the plaintiff seeks punitive damages in excess of actual damages, at least one of these enumerated types of behavior must be shown with clear and convincing evidence. While the proof for punitive damages will probably overlap with that of the underlying cause of action, the plaintiff need not prove all elements of the underlying cause of action by clear and convincing evidence. [6] Rather, in remaining consistent with our prior case law which requires the preponderance of the evidence in most tort claims [7] , we interpret the clear language of the statute to mean that only those specific types of conduct which would support an award of punitive damages must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Here, the trial judge specifically found that clear and convincing evidence showed that an employee of the Defendant, while acting in the course of his employment, did inflict the injury upon the Plaintiff Mr. Rodebush, in the manner that events [sic  evinces?] a wanton or reckless disregard for his rights. The trial judge detailed his reasoning by pointing out that although the evidence was circumstantial, the most likely cause of the whelping of Glen Rodebush's face was severe slapping. He recounted the testimony of the doctor called to examine the marks, and the doctor's opinion that the injury was caused by a human hand. He also noted the testimony of nursing home personnel that while Rodebush was at times combative, he had never been known to inflict pain upon himself. The trial court concluded that plaintiff had met his burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, conduct on the part of the employee properly described as reckless and wanton. Thus, the statutory cap on punitive damages was lifted. [8] In reviewing the issue of whether there was clear and convincing evidence of the wanton and reckless conduct of the nursing home's employee, we find no fault with the trial court's ruling. In addition to those facts stated by the trial judge in support of his ruling, we also note that the evidence showed that no other patient could have inflicted the injury, and that just prior to the bath, another nursing home employee saw Glen Rodebush and testified there were no marks on his face. There was also some testimony that the nursing supervisor on duty was told by the administrator not to call Mrs. Rodebush to inform her of the injury, in violation of nursing home policy. The nursing home argues that there were no eyewitnesses, that Mr. Rodebush did not (could not) testify, and that the trial court's finding could only be made on speculation, rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Our response is that lack of eyewitness testimony is no barrier to meeting the clear and convincing test; indeed the case books are replete with instances of defendants standing convicted of crimes, with the stricter beyond a reasonable doubt test, where the only evidence was circumstantial. See, e.g. Cavazos v. State, 779 P.2d 987, 989 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (defendant convicted of first degree murder even though evidence was circumstantial); Johnson v. State, 764 P.2d 530, 532 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) (defendant convicted of drug charge based on solely circumstantial evidence of possession); Rawlings v. State, 740 P.2d 153, 159 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (defendant convicted of first degree murder even though no body had been found). Additionally, the trial court doubtless took note, as do we, that the defendant declined to call the nurses' aide as a witness to rebut plaintiffs' circumstantial case, if in fact the plaintiffs' theory was not what happened. The nursing home had listed the aide as its witness in the pretrial order, and offered no explanation as to why he was not called. It is not improper for a trier of fact to take such a failure into account, particularly where one party relies on circumstantial evidence and the other fails to call the witness who could prove the circumstances otherwise. Ft. Smith & W.R. Co. v. Collins, 26 Okl. 82, 108 P. 550 (1910). For these reasons, we hold that the initial inquiry as to whether the conduct of the defendant through its employee was wanton and reckless was supported by clear and convincing, albeit circumstantial, evidence. The cap was properly lifted for consideration by the jury.