When an individual is found guilty of extreme misconduct or deliberate negligence in a car accident, punitive damages might be awarded as a form of penalty. These damages act as a deterrent for others and punish the person responsible for the injury. Under the law, punitive damages may be awarded when a defendant’s conduct is highly reckless or intentional. When determining an award of harm, a jury would consider various factors, including whether the defendant was aware of how hazardous their behavior was and whether they had the financial capacity to pay for such an award.
These compensations are only granted in limited cases where very compelling evidence exists. In order to obtain punitive damages from another driver, their behavior must have been horrendous and deserving of retribution. However, proving the negligence in a car accident from the plaintiff is required before punitive damages may be granted. This is especially difficult in car accidents. This article will discuss what jurors consider when deciding on punitive compensation.
Intent to Harm
Intentional torts are civil wrongs that involve the intent to cause harm. For example, assault is an intentional tort because the person who commits it intends to cause harm. Courts recognize intentional torts, and compensation can be awarded for losses suffered due to them.
Gross Negligence or Recklessness
Gross negligence or reckless conduct, sometimes called “wanton and willful misconduct,” can lead to awarding of punitive damages. A case in point is the driver who exceeded the speed limit while driving through a school zone. Such behavior could be considered grossly negligent or reckless.
Conduct of Reprehensible Severity
In order to determine if punitive damages should be awarded, the severity of the defendant’s conduct must be evaluated. The more extreme the behavior, the more likely punitive damages may be imposed. It is necessary to assess how much their actions exceeded what is considered reasonable or acceptable before deciding on penalties.
Based on the Defendant’s Wealth
These compensations are designed to discourage the defendant from engaging in inappropriate behavior and punish them accordingly. Defendants with larger incomes might face higher punitive damage charges to ensure their punishment is commensurate with their wealth. As established in Neal v. Farmers, “deterrence cannot be served if defendants can handle the award comfortably.”
In certain situations, punitive damages may be available to a plaintiff if a defendant’s actions directly resulted in injury. The legal system defines the rules of recovery for punitive damages, and these acts must meet strict criteria for them to be considered for an award.
Punitive Damages: How Often are They Awarded?
Data released by the US Department of Justice suggests that few plaintiffs pursue punitive damages. And even when they do, punitive damages were only awarded in 30% of the cases where plaintiffs successfully sued the defendant. These damages are hard to recover because courts require a clear demonstration that the defendant acted with malice or gross negligence.
In California and elsewhere, juries must consider specific criteria—including the reprehensibility of what occurred and any connection between the harm suffered and the awarded funds—when deciding if compensation should be granted. As such, these punishments are typically reserved for particularly egregious acts.
Punitive damages are awarded when a plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant acted with extreme negligence or misconduct. To prove the award is necessary, plaintiffs must provide evidence to show that the defendant was aware of how hazardous their actions were and had the financial means to pay for such an award. Punitive damages are used as a form of punishment for irresponsible behavior and include intended consequences meant to discourage similar activities in the future.