Court Opinion

ID: 9543425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:45:31.234418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:20.087818
License: Public Domain

CHASANOW, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the holding of the Court that punitive damages are not warranted in the instant case. My reason for writing separately is to respond to the Court’s discussion about when punitive damages may be awarded in unintentional tort suits. *733The majority says that “the test we apply here” is whether the conduct is “ ‘characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud, i.e., “actual malice.” ’ ” 331 Md. 720, 729, 629 A.2d 721, 726 (1993) (quoting Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 460, 601 A.2d 633, 652-53 (1992)). For reasons I will elaborate on below, I think this test is inadequate as the yardstick for determining whether punitive damages are assessable.
Recently in Zenobia, this Court substantially modified punitive damages law in the context of a products liability case. Up until the instant case, we have not, except perhaps in dicta, expressly modified prior punitive damages law in areas other than products liability. The Court today expressly overrules several prior cases, and suggests we are merely returning to the law as it was set forth in Davis v. Gordon, 183 Md. 129, 36 A.2d 699 (1944). It seems to me the Court is not merely reverting back to previously superseded punitive damages law. Instead, the Court is modifying punitive damages law in tort cases “ ‘in light of changed conditions or increased knowledge, that the rule has become unsound in the circumstances of modern life, a vestige of the past, no longer suitable to our people.’ ” Julian v. Christopher, 320 Md. 1, 9, 575 A.2d 735, 739 (1990) (quoting Harrison v. Mont. Co. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 459, 456 A.2d 894, 903 (1983)). The “test” which the majority purports to resurrect from Davis is inadequate in the instant case for the same reasons it was held to be inadequate in Zenobia. Instead of looking backward for an archaic test for “actual malice,” the Court should look forward as we did in Zenobia and formulate an improved “equivalent” test for actual malice.
To put punitive damages in perspective, punitive damages are imposed as punishment and, although they have been held constitutional, they are a windfall to plaintiffs and are imposed without the fundamental protections we require of any other form of punishment imposed by law. There are no real standards for determining the proper amount of punitive damages, and even where the legislature has established a maximum fine for specified conduct, punitive damages for that *734conduct can exceed the maximum legislatively established fine. For example, Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 342(f)(2) provides for a maximum fine of $500 for theft under $300. If punitive damages were awarded for a theft under $300, they obviously need not be limited to the statutory maximum of $500. Double jeopardy protections do not apply to punitive damages. A defendant may be punished by multiple awards of punitive damages to several plaintiffs for the same act. Punitive damages are supposed to be imposed to punish the defendant’s conduct, but since they go to the plaintiff, sympathy for the plaintiff will often influence the amount. Except in punitive damages cases, we would certainly not permit a system where a prosecutor gets some, or all, of the fines assessed by the court. We would say the prosecutor’s motives should be to seek punishment and deterrence, not personal financial gain. In punitive damages cases the plaintiff is acting as the public’s prosecutor, but the plaintiffs motive generally is personal financial gain. It should be obvious that punitive damages have few of the safeguards that are afforded when other punishments are imposed by law.
There are other criticisms about the way we assess punitive damages which I need not reiterate here. For such criticisms, see, e.g., D. Ellis, Fairness and Efficiency in the Law of Punitive Damages, 56 S.Cal.L.Rev. 1 (1982); J. Ghiardi, The Case Against Punitive Damages, 8 Forum 411 (1972); J. Long, Punitive Damages: An Unsettled Doctrine, 25 Drake L.Rev. 870 (1976); J. Mallor & B. Roberts, Punitive Damages: Toward a Principled Approach, 31 Hastings L.J. 639 (1980); J. Sales & K. Cole, Punitive Damages: A Relic That Has Outlived Its Origin, 37 Vand.L.Rev. 1117, 1154 (1984) (“the amount of punitive damages awarded in recent years ... has escalated to astronomical figures that boggle the mind”).
There are numerous anecdotal accounts of punitive damages awards in the millions of dollars, as well as awards that have amounted to death sentences for corporations and been ruinous to individuals. There is a definite increase in the incidences of, and size of, punitive damages awards. 2 J. Ghiardi & J. Kircher, Punitive Damages: Law and Procedure § 21.01, at 2 *735(1985). A 1987 RAND Corporation study found a 2,400% increase in the number of punitive damages awards in Cook County, Illinois from 1960-64 to 1980-84, and over a 250% increase in San Francisco County for the same period. The study also found a 4,200% increase in the median punitive damages award in Cook County during that period, and a 270% increase in San Francisco County. Peterson, et al., Punitive Damages—Empirical Findings, The Institute for Civil Justice (The RAND Corporation, 1987), cited in R. Blatt, et al., Punitive Damages: A State-By-State Guide to Law and Practice § 1.4, at 11-12 (1991). As we said in Zenobia,
“[ajccompanying this increase in punitive damage claims, awards and amounts of awards, is renewed criticism of the concept of punitive damages in a tort system designed primarily to compensate injured parties for harm.”
Zenobia, 325 Md. at 451, 601 A.2d at 648. For these reasons, the Court in Zenobia and in the instant case has imposed new restrictions on punitive damages.
Neither the instant case nor Zenobia involves intentional torts and neither expressly decides whether “actual malice” is required for punitive damages in intentional tort actions, or whether implied malice is still sufficient. I would point out, however, that requiring the equivalent of actual malice uniformly for punitive damages in all tort actions would be consistent with Zenobia!s holding, its dicta discussing express and implied malice in torts arising out of contract, 325 Md. at 453-55, 601 A.2d at 649-50, and its criticism of the implied malice standard.
“The implied malice test ... has been overbroad in its application and has resulted in inconsistent jury verdicts involving similar facts. It provides little guidance for individuals and companies to enable them to predict behavior that will either trigger or avoid punitive damages liability, and it undermines the deterrent effect of these awards.” (Footnote omitted).
*736Zenobia, 325 Md. at 459, 601 A.2d at 652. For these reasons, and because I believe there should be uniform rules for the imposition of punitive damages, in the balance of this opinion I will not differentiate between intentional and unintentional torts.
In Zenobia, we dealt with punitive damages in a products liability case. Although Zenobia contained a great deal of dicta, the standard for punitive damages formulated in Zenobia was quite narrow. In Zenobia we clearly did not apply a test of “evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud.” We specifically held that definition “does not translate easily into products liability cases.” Zenobia, 325 Md. at 460, 601 A.2d at 653. Instead we formulated and applied a totally new test for punitive damages which we held to be “the equivalent” of actual malice. Zenobia, 325 Md. at 462, 601 A.2d at 653. That test was (1) actual knowledge of the product’s defect, including deliberately shutting one’s eyes to the defect, and (2) conscious or deliberate disregard of, or a willful refusal to recognize, foreseeable harm. Id. at 462 & n. 23, 601 A.2d at 653-54 & n. 23.
For all torts, we should do the same as we did in Zenobia. We should formulate a clear test for “the equivalent” of actual malice—a test which, as did the test in Zenobia, sets forth the punishable state of awareness. That test for actual malice should be the same as, or similar to, the test formulated and actually applied in Zenobia.
I suggest that the test for punitive damages for drunk driving accidents or other torts should not be broader or more inclusive than the test for punitive damages in products liability cases. There is perhaps a better reason for awarding punitive damages in products liability cases than in most other torts, including drunk driving tort cases. There is no effective criminal sanction universally used to punish manufacturers of dangerously defective products, therefore, punitive damages are the only effective way to punish and deter manufacturers who might otherwise be inclined to deliberately risk the welfare of the consuming public for the lure of profit. A *737manufacturer’s only deterrent might be the risk of substantial punitive damages. Conversely, more deterrence exists for drunk drivers than punitive damages. It is inconceivable that any drunk driver would think “I am not deterred by the possibility of being sentenced to a year in jail or the possibility of losing my license, or the possibility of injuring myself; however, if I hurt someone else, in addition to being entitled to compensatory damages, that person might also be entitled to punitive damages—that scares me.” As we noted in Davis, 183 Md. at 133, 36 A.2d at 701, “The rules of the road are far more effective than any inflammatory verdicts in making our streets and highways safe for travel. The fear of arrest is more of a deterrent than a verdict in a civil case for damages.”
In defining “actual malice” in the instant case, the majority states: “Zenobia returned to the Davis v. Gordon test of ‘conduct ... characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud, i.e., “actual malice.” ’ Zenobia, 325 Md. at 460, 601 A.2d at 652. That is the test that we apply here.” 331 Md. at 729, 629 A.2d at 726. The majority is incorrect. The test for “actual malice” that was formulated and applied in Zenobia was not the Davis test. Instead, the test applied in Zenobia was (1) actual knowledge of the product’s defect, and (2) conscious or deliberate disregard of, or a willful refusal to recognize, foreseeable harm. Zenobia, 325 Md. at 462, 601 A.2d at 653-54. That test is no where found in, or distilled from, the definition of actual malice discussed in Davis. Zenobia recognized that the Davis test for “actual malice” did not work in products liability cases, so the Court formulated a new test which it called “the equivalent ” of the actual malice that was discussed in Davis. The Davis test for “actual malice” does not work any better in other tort cases than it does in products liability cases. We should not simply parrot an ineffective standard. We should do as we did in Zenobia— formulate an “equivalent” test. Instead of expanding the dicta in Zenobia about an antiquated definition of actual malice which the Court did not apply, we should expand the holding in Zenobia and the actual test the Court applied in Zenobia.
*738I would further note that, although purporting to simply return to the Davis “actual malice” definition, the majority in fact modifies that definition. The actual malice test the majority adopts, and attributes to Davis, is conduct “characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, ill will or fraud.... ” 331 Md. at 729, 629 A.2d at 726. That is not the Davis test. The actual Davis test is “to entitle one to such [punitive] damages there must be an element of fraud, or malice, or evil intent, or oppression entering into and forming part of the wrongful act.” Davis, 183 Md. at 133, 36 A.2d at 701. The test articulated by the majority is a subtle but significant modification of the test articulated in Davis. The majority added “intent to injure” and “ill will” to the Davis test, and it removed “malice” and “oppression.” The majority apparently recognizes that Davis’s “actual malice” test is inadequate and alters it. If the majority is going to alter the Davis test, it should do so in a more helpful manner. Instead of resurrecting and subtly modifying an antiquated definition of actual malice, which gives insufficient guidance to judges or juries, we should do just as we did in Zenobia and establish a more meaningful “equivalent” of those words.
In setting out its “actual malice” criteria for punitive damages, the majority seems to approve “evil motive” and “ill will” as alternatives to its new “intent to injure” requirement. If a defendant acts with “ill will” or “evil motive,” apparently the defendant does not have to intend to do the specific act and/or intend that the act will cause injury. The majority’s test seems to be an alternative of either Davis’s punishable frame of mind (evil motive and ill will) or punishable state of mind (intent to injure). Any test for punitive damages should do as Zenobia did and clearly set out the requirements of an intentional act and recognition of foreseeable injury. We should jettison vague terms like “evil motive” or “ill will” or “fraud” unless it is intentional fraud accompanied by a recognition of foreseeable injury.
Telling a jury that it may award punitive damages if the defendant’s conduct was “characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud” gives the jury an overinclusive, *739vague menu and is confusing. The majority, in my opinion quite properly, focuses only on the “intent to injure” alternative, which, as previously noted, was not part of the original Davis test. The majority opinion states that “at the time of the accident, Sparks’s state of mind was to the contrary of that required by Zenobia. His intent was to avoid injury to those stopped ahead of him. He had not been traveling at an excessive speed, and he was attempting to stop the truck.” 331 Md. at 725-26, 629 A.2d at 724. The problem with the majority’s standard is not with the “intent to injure” requirement; it is with the alternative forms of actual malice under the majority’s test. Could the jury find Sparks’ conduct was “characterized by evil motive” if he was driving to a tavern to get even more drunk? Could the jury find his conduct was “characterized by ill will” if he told people in the bar that he hated everyone in this town? Could his conduct be “characterized by fraud” if he was permitted to drive his sister’s car only because he lied to her and told her he was sober? If we are going to permit punitive damages, we should have a clearly articulated test that enables the trier of fact to more rationally decide when punitive damages can be assessed.
An effective test for punitive damages can be distilled from our Zenobia holding and, as we did in that case, the Court should establish the “equivalent” of actual malice for all tort cases. As to the required state of mind, we should simply extend Zenobia and hold that, as a basis for punitive damages, the defendant must have committed an intentional act, not a negligent act, and not even a grossly negligent act. Second, we should require the defendant to have known that the act would cause foreseeable injury or to have willfully refused to recognize that the act would cause foreseeable injury. This is the same basic test that we used in Zenobia, and it should be universally applied. The Court should take a progressive step forward based on the holding in Zenobia, not a regressive leap backwards based on the dicta in Zenobia.
Dissenting Opinion by ROBERT M. BELL, J.