 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Calmes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.8/21/1991
WRIGHT, J.
Calmes appeals to this court the reversal of the punitive damage award and the failure to award him compensatory damages frosGoodyear reflecting fault assigned to Pettibone on the basis of joint and several liability. On cross-appeal, Goodyear asserts that product misuse is a complete defense barring any recovery, that the absence of a general verdict bars the entry of judgment on inconsistent jury interrogatory answers, and that a new trial is warranted due to trial misconduct by Calmes's counsel.
We will first address the propriety of the punitive damages award. The court of appeals reversed the jury's award of punitive damages on the grounds that a valid claim for punitive damages was not established. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the court of appeals and affirm its judgment in that respect.
Punitive damages in this state are available upon a finding of actual malice. "Actual malice" for these purposes is "(1) that state of mind under which a person's conduct is characterized by hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge, or (2) a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that has a great probability of causing substantial harm." (Emphasis sic.) Preston v. Murty (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 334, 512 N.E.2d 1174, syllabus.
In Preston we arrived at the second standard for an award of punitive damages after a thoughtful review of the circumstances for which, and standards under which, punitive damages have been awarded in the past. Specifically, we held there, and hold here, that punitive damages are intended to punish and deter conduct resulting from a mental state so callous in its disregard for the rights and safety of others that society deems it intolerable. This mental state is the component of the standard contained in the phrase "conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons * * *." Id. at 335, 512 N.E.2d at 1176.
In addition to defining the requisite mental state, Preston also held that misconduct greater than mere negligence is required. This component is expressed in the language "great probability of causing substantial harm," which replaced language from earlier cases such as "outrageous," "flagrant," and "criminal." Id. at 335-336, 512 N.E.2d at 1176.
On this second criterion the court of appeals ruled for Goodyear: "We agree with Goodyear that the issue [of punitive damages] should not have been submitted to the jury. While there is some evidence of the possibility of harm arising from Goodyear's acts, there is a lack of substantial, competent anscredible evidence of a great probability of harm." (Emphasis sic.) We agree.
There is no doubt of the destructive capacity of the tire rim in question when coupled with significant air pressure. The probability of that destructive force being unleashed, however, simply was not great.
As the court of appeals succinctly noted, the occurrence of this unique accident required the following combination of acts aside from Goodyear's acts:
"1. Calmes failed to heed instructions;
"2. Calmes placed his head in close proximity to the tire cage;
"3. Pettibone provided Calmes with mismatched components;
"4. Pettibone failed to provide Calmes with a remote air chuck;
"5. Calmes inserted the lock ring backwards;
"6. Calmes combined components which were mismatched."
Nevertheless, Calmes asserts that probability should be adjudged on a foreseeability standard. Calmes couches this argument in language from Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 45
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|