Opinion ID: 2615017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: the evidence warranted a punitive damages instruction

Text: It is urged that the nisi prius court applied the wrong standard of proof when it wrested punitive damages from the jury. [113] Oklahoma's punitive damage statute, 23 O.S.Supp. 1986 § 9, [114] was amended in 1986 to require clear and convincing evidence when punitive damages in excess of actual damages are sought. The old standard of preponderance, which requires some evidence of fraud, oppression, malice or reckless disregard of another's rights, still governs where the quantum of punitive damages sought does not exceed that of the actual damages. [115] Punitive damages in excess of actual damages were not sought below. [116] The trial judge should not have used the higher clear-and-convincing standard when he considered whether to submit punitive damages to the jury; [117] he should have instructed on punitive damages  limiting recovery to the same amount as that for actual damages  if there was a showing of some element of fraud, malice or reckless disregard of the mother's rights. [118] Punitive damages are allowable when there is evidence of reckless and wanton disregard of another's rights from which malice and evil intent may be inferred. [119] Oppressive intent may also be inferred from complete indifference to consequences, conscious or reckless disregard of the safety of others, or gross negligence. [120] The proof adduced at trial does tend to show, among other things: (1) it is standard procedure for doctors to determine a pregnant patient's blood type and Rh-factor, (2) the mother's blood was never typed during the entire course of treatment for her pregnancy and miscarriage, (3) withholding Rho-GAM from a woman who is a candidate for it is considered malpractice virtually ipso facto, regardless of who seems to be at fault and (4) hemolytic disease is overwhelmingly preventable. An expert witness testified that the doctors' behavior towards the mother showed complete disregard for the patient's welfare. This, and other evidence in the record, indicates that three doctors and a hospital, any of whom could and should have been concerned with the mother's Rh-factor, never even considered it. The jury could conclude from the evidence presented that the doctors were indifferent to the consequences of their actions or demonstrated a reckless disregard for their patient's rights. This evidence would support submission to the jury of punitive damages with an appropriate limitation on the quantum that might be awarded.