Opinion ID: 492759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: multiple punitive damages awards

Text: 5 Georgia law governs this diversity case, and we must interpret the law as would a Georgia court. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Even [i]n the absence of controlling precedent, we must nonetheless decide ... issue[s] as we believe a [Georgia] court would decide [them] ... Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 952, 101 S.Ct. 356, 66 L.Ed.2d 216 (1980). 2 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the Georgia court would adopt the prevailing rule if called upon to do so. Hensley v. E.R. Carpenter Co., 633 F.2d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir.1980). 6 In our role as a Georgia court, we must first outline the Georgia law on punitive damages. 3 O.C.G.A. Sec. 51-12-5 (1982), the statute applicable to this case, 4 states that in a tort action in which there are aggravating circumstances, in either the act or the intention, the jury may give additional damages to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the trespass or as compensation for the wounded feelings of the plaintiff. 5 To authorize the imposition of punitive damages, there must be evidence of willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness or oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences. 6 General Refractories Co. v. Rogers, 240 Ga. 228, 230, 297 S.E.2d 234 (1977). See also Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., 616 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir.1980); Gilman Paper Co. v. James, 235 Ga. 348, 219 S.E.2d 447 (1975); Southern R. Co. v. O'Bryan, 119 Ga. 147(1), 45 S.E. 1000 (1903). Punitive damages cannot be awarded for mere negligence. Molton v. Commercial Credit Corp., 127 Ga.App. 390, 193 S.E.2d 629 (1972); Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Young, 112 Ga.App. 608, 145 S.E.2d 700 (1965). With these guidelines in mind, the jury must determine when punitive damages should be allowed as well as the amount of such damages. Walk v. Carter, 110 Ga.App. 273, 138 S.E.2d 390 (1964). See also Alliance Transp., Inc. v. Mayer, 165 Ga.App. 344, 301 S.E.2d 290 (1983). The amount, as measured by the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury, which would be required to deter future acts, necessarily depends upon the facts of the particular case. Smith v. Milikin, 247 Ga. 369, 371-72(3), 276 S.E.2d 35 (1981). 7 National Gypsum contends that the limited deterrent purpose of punitive damages under Georgia law 7 renders them inappropriate in asbestos litigation where there is the possibility of multiple punitive damages awards against the same company. 8 Since National Gypsum no longer produces products containing asbestos, National Gypsum contends that punitive damages as a specific deterrent are no longer necessary. National Gypsum is incorrectly narrowing the deterrent impact of punitive damages. A jury could also award punitive damages to deter the manufacturer from making conscious decisions to defer implementation of safety devices in order to protect its profits. Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331, 241, 319 S.E.2d 470 (1984). Punitive damages act as a specific deterrent in both specific and general ways. In this case, Georgia allows punitive damages to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the trespass. Here the trespass is both failing to warn customers of the dangers of asbestos and failing generally to initiate proper safety procedures. Courts and commentators have noted that punitive damages serve as a critical deterrent in the area of consumer safety by encouraging manufacturers to take affirmative steps in product safety. Punitive damages serve to deter manufacturers from accepting the risks of paying compensatory damages rather than changing the business practice which would result in extra cost. Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 548 F.Supp. 357, 376 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd sub nom. Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 760 F.2d 481 (3d Cir.1984) (citing as examples Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d 260, 294 N.W.2d 437, 451-57 (1980); Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day, Alaska, 594 P.2d 38, 47 (1979); Owen, Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation, 74 Mich.Law Rev. 1257, 1277-99 (1976)). 8 Additionally, National Gypsum maintains that punitive damages are inappropriate in asbestos cases because each punitive damages award imposed on a manufacturer constitutes a separate punishment for the same conduct. Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331, 319 S.E.2d 470 (1984) provides some guidance in this area. In Stubblefield, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed an eight million dollar punitive damages award against Ford Motor Company for marketing the mass-produced Mustang II with a known defect. Obviously, the defect in Ford's Mustang could affect more than one person. Nevertheless, the Georgia Court of Appeals allowed the punitive damages award even though there was the possibility that Ford Motor Company might have to face multiple punitive damages awards as a result of the same defect. Similarly, National Gypsum's joint compound containing asbestos could impair the health of more than one person. Multiple awards in this products liability situation should also be allowed. The Neal court summed up its position on multiple awards of punitive damages in the following manner: 9 [S]ince a product seller owes a separate duty to each individual who is a consumer or user of such a product to refrain from outrageous conduct and, if the defendant exhibits outrageous conduct to a particular individual through deficiencies in that product which causes injury to that plaintiff, then its course of conduct cannot be characterized as the same act because it is separate and distinct with respect to each individual plaintiff. The conduct of the tortfeasor must be viewed with respect to each individual. Neal, 548 F.Supp. at 377-78. 10 Thus, a punitive damages award may be authorized against a manufacturer for each individual plaintiff who contracts asbestos from exposure to the manufacturer's products. 11