Generally speaking, the court noted that Plaintiff law
requires conduct on the part of a Defendant that is so outrageous as to
demonstrate willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. The law also requires that a subjective
appreciation of the risk of danger is also necessary to support such a
claim.
In this case, the court found that, since the moving
Defendant did not retain any control over any aspect of the manufacturing of
the subject product, that Defendant could not be found to have had the
requisite culpable mental state to support a claim of punitive damages against
the Defendant. The court also noted that
the record revealed that this Defendant was in compliance with all applicable
regulations.
Judge Malachy E. Mannion M.D. Pa. |
Ultimately, the court found that the evidence revealed that,
at most, the moving Defendant’s conduct amounted to negligence, which is
insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages as a matter of law.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia
office of the law firm of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.