Tuttle v. Raymond - 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985)

Rule:

The requirement of malice will be most obviously satisfied by a showing of "express" or "actual" malice. Such malice exists where the defendant's tortious conduct is motivated by ill will toward the plaintiff. Punitive damages will also be available, however, where deliberate conduct by the defendant, although motivated by something other than ill will toward any particular party, is so outrageous that malice toward a person injured as a result of that conduct can be implied. For the purpose of assessing punitive damages, such "implied" or "legal" malice will not be established by the defendant's mere reckless disregard of the circumstances.

Facts:

The accident victim was seriously injured when an automobile driven by defendant driver struck her automobile. After a jury trial, the Superior Court, Androscoggin County, entered a final judgment ordering the driver to pay the plaintiff $50,000 in compensatory damages and $22,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the driver challenged only the award of punitive damages. First, the driver urged the court to abolish common law punitive damages in Maine. Alternatively, the driver contended that punitive damages are inappropriate as a matter of law on the facts underlying this case. Finally, should both of those arguments fail to persuade the Court, the driver argued that several errors in the trial below nevertheless require reversal of the punitive damages award.

Issue:

Was the award of punitive damages to the victim proper?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court vacated the trial court's award of punitive damages, but affirmed the judgment, as amended. The court held that in the absence of constitutional compulsion, it could see no reason to bar actions for punitive damages based on the fact that the underlying conduct was also subject to criminal prosecution. The court found that the extra recovery afforded to a plaintiff by punitive damages did not constitute a windfall, but rather, provided an incentive for private civil enforcement of society's rules against serious misconduct. The court held that punitive damages were available based upon tortious conduct only if a plaintiff could prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with malice; the driver's reckless conduct was insufficient to support an award of punitive damages because it was not accompanied by malice.