 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone6/5/1998
e damages as a remedy in product cases was fully assimilated into our jurisprudence, the law has recognized for decades that a supplier has a duty to adequately warn of its product's hidden dangers. See Noel, Products Defective Because of Inadequate Directions or Warnings, 23 Sw. L.J. 256, 264-67 (1969); see also Owen I, supra, at 1258; Owen, Problems in Assessing Punitive Damages Against Manufacturers of Defective Products, 49 U. Chic. L. Rev. 1, 2-3 (1982)(Owen III). Indeed, the original Restatement articulated a supplier's duty to warn about a product's dangers. See Restatement of Torts ยง 388 (1934).
The evidence here shows that OCF knew about the dangers of asbestos even before it began selling or manufacturing Kaylo. Moreover, reported cases involving damages caused by defective products gave a manufacturer like OCF notice that its misconduct--here OCF's manufacture of asbestos-containing Kaylo for about 14 years and the distribution of it for almost 20 years without warning of Kaylo's dangers--could subject it to punitive damages. See, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. Gunn, 176 So. 332 (Ala. 1937)(affirming punitive damage award for sale of adulterated motor oil); Birmingham Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Murphy, 56 So. 817 (Ala. Ct. of App. 1911)(upholding punitive damage award for faulty wiring on street car); Toole v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 60 Cal. Rptr.2d 398 (1967)(upholding $250,000 punitive damage award for drug manufacturer's failure to warn consumers about known hazards of its product); Boise Dodge, Inc. v. Clark, 453 P.2d 551 (Idaho 1969)(affirming punitive damage award against auto dealer for misrepresentations about auto); Moore v. Jewell Tea Co., 253 N.E.2d 636 (Ill. App. 1969), affd., 263 N.E.2d 103 (Ill. 1970)(affirming punitive damage award against manufacturer because it did not warn consumers of known risk of explosion of can of "Drano" drain-cleaner); see also Owen I, supra, at 1269 (discussing Fleet v. Hollenkemp, 52 Ky. 219 (1852)(involving the sale of an adulterated drug where court upheld punitive damage award)); Wheeler, A Proposal for Further Common Law Development of the Use of Punitive Damages in Modern Product Liability Litigation, 40 Ala. L. Rev. 919 (1989)(discussing history of punitive damage awards in product liability litigation). And " t has long been established . . . that tortious behavior that is particularly egregious will warrant punitive damages." Continental Trend Resources, Inc., 101 F.3d at 638. Despite the dearth of judicial decisions about punitive damages in products liability cases during the relevant time period, the award in this case is still constitutionally sound given OCF's knowledge about Kaylo and its continuing failure to warn about Kaylo's hidden dangers.
Although the court of appeals did not have the benefit of BMW when it reviewed the punitive damage awards against OCF, applying the BMW guideposts reveals that we should not alter the court of appeals' Conclusion. We hold that the punitive damage awards here do not, by themselves, violate due process under BMW's standards.
B. Multiple Punitive Damage Awards And Due Process
We next consider OCF's claim that any further punitive damage awards levied against it for manufacturing and distributing Kaylo, beginning with the punitive damage awards here, are excessive as a matter of law in violation of the Due Process Clause. OCF argues that continued punitive damage awards for the same course of conduct violate substantive due process because the punishment and deterrence objectives underlying punitive damages have already been achieved by previous punitive damage awards for that course of conduct. OCF contends that because no legitimate purpose is served by additional pu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|