 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eby v. Thompson3/2/2005
s claims, I was unable to locate any cases that allowed punitive damages with similar facts. Most cases involved egregious conduct such as the failure of a railroad to place signals at a crossing over a period of years despite being told of the need to do so, a failure to cut back growth around crossings to ensure motorist safety despite warnings of dangerous overgrowth or a failure to repair after being warned of a dangerous condition.
In Jardel, a leading Delaware case on punitive damages, the Supreme Court considered whether the defendant in that matter anticipated the precise harm which eventuated, but consciously disregarded an obligation to avoid it. The Court noted that a defendant could not be held liable for failing to recognize and consciously ignoring the potential for a kidnapping and rape to occur when it was previously put on notice of general criminal conduct. The Jardel court held that it may have been an error of judgment or negligent for the defendant to not employ a larger security team, "but it can hardly be said that Jardel turned its back on a known risk."
Likewise, in this case, there is nothing to establish that the railroad employees consciously ignored the precise harm that occurred in this case. There is no indication that they anticipated a trailer becoming disengaged from the vehicle pulling it, propelling backwards and fatally injuring someone.
Finally, I note that, to the extent the Plaintiffs inferentially argue that the employees made an economic or cost-saving decision to delay maintenance, Jardel holds that " n economic decision may be the basis for punitive damages, however, only if the economic cost is intentionally weighed against a perceived risk which includes the reasonable likelihood of the harm which occurred."
There is no doubt that a tragedy has occurred with grievous impact upon Mr. Eby's wife and children. However, punitive damages should not be considered simply because of a tragic outcome. Punitive damages, being penal in nature, are reserved for conduct which is outrageous, caused by an evil motive, or recklessly indifferent to the rights of others. The railroad employees may have made the wrong decision, but the decision was void of any egregious intention or conscious disregard for public safety. "Mere inadvertence, mistake or errors of judgment which constitute mere negligence will not suffice. . . . It is not enough that a decision be wrong. It must result from a conscious indifference to the decision's foreseeable effect." In this case, a "conscious indifference" has not been established by the Plaintiffs.
For the above reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of punitive damages as to Norfolk is GRANTED.
Very truly yours,
Page 1 2 3 4 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|