 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire12/10/2003
The Naranjos attempt to distinguish Edmond, arguing its outcome was controlled by the "principal/agent" relationship between Carr and Fairfield. The relationship between the alleged tortfeasors in Edmond, however, was not determinative and, in fact, this court did not even comment on the relationship. The Naranjos also point out that the case was decided before joint liability was abolished in Arizona, but they do not explain how that change would affect the court's analysis or conclusion. As in Edmond, the Naranjos' cause of action against Bridgestone for "actual damages has been extinguished." Id. Because they no longer can recover actual damages against Bridgestone, their claim for punitive damages cannot proceed. See LaFrentz v. Gallagher, 105 Ariz. 255, 259, 462 P.2d 804, 808 (1969) (award of actual damages is prerequisite to recovery of exemplary damages); Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 184 Ariz. 120, 131, 907 P.2d 506, 517 (App. 1995) ("A plaintiff must be entitled to compensatory damages before being entitled to punitive damages.").
Finally, we agree with Bridgestone that, "as a practical matter, to permit plaintiffs to pursue compensatory damages against one tortfeasor and then seek punitive damages in a separate lawsuit is a waste of judicial resources, requiring courts to try the same case multiple times, with the resulting multiplicity of suits, inconsistent verdicts, expense, delay, etc." To establish their claim for punitive damages, the Naranjos necessarily would need to prove Bridgestone's underlying liability for the accident and their resulting injuries, Bridgestone's proportionate fault, and the amount of compensatory damages before a fact-finder could even consider the various prerequisites for an award of punitive damages. See Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, , 24 P.3d 1274, (App. 2001) (" ur common law mandates that a plaintiff suffer actual damages as a result of the underlying tort before a claim of punitive damages can be entertained."); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1524, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585, ___ (2003) (declining "to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed" but noting that, "in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process"). This would require proceedings largely duplicative of the Naranjos' action against A.P.S.
As noted earlier, public policy generally favors one action, when possible, to resolve all claims against all known, potential tortfeasors, and collateral estoppel bars the Naranjos from relitigating their actual damages. The Naranjos chose to exclude Bridgestone from the original litigation and instead sought to recover their damages from A.P.S. alone. They have now recovered their full damages and have no further cause of action arising from the accident.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bridgestone is affirmed.
JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Chief Judge
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|