Opinion ID: 700522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Propriety of the Punitive Damages Award

Text: 37 Finally, Roadway argues that the district court's award of punitive damages was excessive as a matter of law. Under Georgia law, [p]unitive damages may be awarded only in such tort actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. O.C.G.A. Sec. 51-12-5.1(b) (1982 & 1994 Supp.). Moreover, [p]unitive damages shall be awarded not as compensation to a plaintiff but solely to punish, penalize, or deter a defendant. O.C.G.A. Sec. 51-12-5.1(c) (1982 & 1994 Supp.). The district court found that punitive damages are justified on the facts and are necessary to deter future wrongdoing. 38 In determining the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages, courts should consider whether: (1) the misconduct caused personal injury or merely damage to property; (2) the actor's misconduct was active or passive; and (3) a rational relationship exists between the misconduct and the amount of the award. See Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Brown, 258 Ga. 115, 365 S.E.2d 827, 833 (plurality opinion), appeal dismissed, 488 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 36, 102 L.Ed.2d 15 (1988). Applying these factors, we conclude that the district court's award of $100,000 was reasonable. The active misconduct of Roadway's supervisors caused Lightning to suffer a mental disorder that required his hospitalization. Moreover, given Roadway's egregious conduct, and the actual damages that Lightning endured, we conclude that a rational relationship exists between the misconduct at issue and the amount of the award. Accordingly, we reject Roadway's contention that the district court's punitive damages award was excessive.