Court Opinion

ID: 9728085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:58:00.024048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:45.835106
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, President Judge,
concurring*:
I concur in the result. I am unable to join the majority’s discussion of the punitive damages issue, for it suggests that the issue is novel and that therefore we must discuss and decide it. In fact the Supreme Court has already *567discussed and decided whether Pennsylvania law requires proof of actual malice (knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth) or common law malice (spite or ill will) for the recovery of punitive damages. The law requires actual malice, and it has for many years. See Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 506 Pa. 304, 331-332, 485 A.2d 374, 388 (1984) (“To justify punitive damages, the plaintiff is called upon to satisfy the ‘actual malice’ test.”); Montgomery v. Dennison, 363 Pa. 255, 270, 69 A.2d 520, 528 (1949) (“malice does not necessarily mean a particular ill-will toward another; it comprehends in certain cases ‘recklessness of consequences and mind regardless of social duty’ ”) (emphasis in original). Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985), in no way affected this principle, and is in my view irrelevant to our decision here.
TAMILIA, J., joined on the issue of punitive damages but otherwise joined Judge BECK’s opinion.

 President Judge SPAETH wrote this concurring statement before the expiration of his term on the court.