Opinion ID: 1296967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Punitive Damages Overview

Text: (1) The civil law is normally concerned with compensating victims for actual injuries sustained at the hands of a tortfeasor. Punitive damages are an exception to this rule. Since 1872, they have been statutorily authorized in actions not arising from contract where the tortious event involves an additional egregious component  oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Punitive damages are to be assessed in an amount which, depending upon the defendant's financial worth and other factors, will deter him and others from committing similar misdeeds. ( Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 110-111 [284 Cal. Rptr. 318, 813 P.2d 1348].) Because compensatory damages are designed to make the plaintiff whole, punitive damages are a windfall form of recovery. ( Id., at p. 120.) For more than a century, the punitive damages scheme remained unchanged. In recent years, however, the Legislature has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove such claims. Beginning in 1979, various procedural restrictions were enacted. (2) The Legislature limited the circumstances under which evidence of the defendant's financial condition could be discovered and admitted, authorized bifurcation of the punitive damages phase of trial, and barred disclosure of the amount of punitive damages sought in the complaint. (Civ. Code, § 3295, subds. (a)-(e).) These provisions were apparently intended to curtail use of such claims as a tactical ploy. The pretrial discovery limits ensure that defendants are not coerced into settling suits solely to avoid unwarranted intrusions into their private financial affairs, while the evidentiary restrictions minimize potential prejudice to the defense in front of a jury. (See Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal. App.3d 86, 90-91 [227 Cal. Rptr. 806]; Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal. App.3d 543, 550 [160 Cal. Rptr. 561]; Richards v. Superior Court (1978) 86 Cal. App.3d 265, 270-271 [150 Cal. Rptr. 77].) In 1980, the Legislature began modifying the substantive elements of punitive damage awards. It limited the circumstances under which an employer could be held liable for punitive damages based upon acts of an employee. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).) At the same time, the concepts of oppression, fraud, and malice were given specific definitions. ( Id., § 3294, subd. (c).) Perhaps not coincidentally, such topics had been addressed by this court the previous year. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 [157 Cal. Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854] [malice]; Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809 [169 Cal. Rptr. 691, 620 P.2d 141] [employer liability].) Additional requirements were imposed by the Willie L. Brown, Jr.-Bill Lockyer Civil Liability Reform Act of 1987 (1987 Reform Act or Act). (Stats. 1987, ch. 1498, §§ 1-7, pp. 5777-5782.) As noted in Central Pathology, supra, 3 Cal.4th 181, 188, the Act amended Civil Code section 3294 by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proving punitive damages at trial to clear and convincing evidence. The definition of malice was also refined. For plaintiffs attempting to prove malice by showing a conscious disregard of their rights as opposed to an actual intent to harm, the Act imposed additional requirements of despicable and willful defense conduct. The 1987 Reform Act also added section 425.13 to the Code of Civil Procedure. As we will explain, the statute imposes certain pretrial procedural requirements on plaintiffs attempting to plead a punitive damages claim against a health care provider. It is not the only statute of its kind. Between 1988 and 1992, several similar provisions, covering both compensatory and punitive damage claims, were added to the Code of Civil Procedure. (§§ 425.14 [punitive damages claim against religious corporation], 425.15 [negligence claim against volunteer director or officer of nonprofit corporation], 425.16 [SLAPP suit affecting right of petition/free speech]; see also Civ. Code, §§ 1714.10 [conspiracy claim against attorney], 3295, subd. (c) [discovery in punitive damages action].)