explaining that once the trial court determines competent evidence exists, the statute then “guides the jury as to the many factors of conduct to consider, the level of conduct, and the degree of proof necessary to make an award of punitive damages”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that once the trial court determines competent evidence exists, the statute then “guides the jury as to the many factors of conduct to consider, the level of conduct, and the degree of proof necessary to make an award of punitive damages”
- finding that it was error for the trial court to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury when “there [was] simply no evidence sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.”
- refusing to carve out an exception to the collateral source rule from the plain and clear language of the Workers' Compensation Act, 85 O.S. 2001 § 45
- ‘‘Exemplary damages are a tool to deter the wrongdoer and are for society's benefit, not the litigating party's.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REIF, J.,
with whom COLBERT, V.C.J., and WATT, J., join, concurring in part; dissenting in part.
T1 I concur in the majority opinion in all respects except the reversal of the punitive damages award. I dissent to reversing the award of punitive damages. I believe there was sufficient evidence to support submission of punitive damages to the jury notwithstanding the doubts expressed by the trial court in this regard. I also believe there was sufficient evidence to support the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury.