|
Category: Truck Accident Verdicts
The Maryland Truck Accident Blog has moved!
Click
here!
Date: January 18, 2006
Title: Jury Awards $14.1 Million to Truck Accident Victim
Author: Ronald
V. Miller, Jr.
Comments: Select
here
On January 14, 2006, a Clark County, Nevada jury awarded $14.1
million to a truck crash victim who was killed by a drunk driver
in 2001. The verdict was divided between $4.1 million in compensatory
damages and $10 million in punitive damages to be paid by three
corporate defendants: Terrible Herbst Inc., ETT Inc., and Herbst
Supply Inc.
Rosa Delegado, a 58-year-old grandmother, was getting into her
car when the defendant truck driver hit her with a large industrial
truck. Delegado was pinned against her car and run over. Ms. Delegado's
family's attorney filed a personal injury civil lawsuit against
Terrible Herbst, which operates 80 convenience stores and gas
stations in Nevada.
The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant driver had a history
of drinking and driving that apparently did not offend the sensibilities
of his employer Terrible Herbst. In fact, incredibly, a company
supervisor testified that he was not concerned by the fact that
the truck driver defendant had come to work smelling of beer.
He further testified on another occasion that the truck driver
and another temporary worker asked him for permission to drink
beer at lunch. In spite of this, the supervisor testified that
he did not necessarily have reservations about this man driving
a truck for Terrible Herbst. Unbelievable.
I did not sit through the trial, of course, I am just reading
the media's account of this truck accident. But if these facts
are as presented, it is hard to argue that punitive damages are
not appropriate. In this case, the jury readily agreed to the
tune of $10 million.
In Maryland, punitive damages are impossible to recover in a
personal injury case like this one because the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the defendant acted with "actual malice."
Actual malice is "evil motive, intent to injure, ill will
or fraud." Setting the bar even higher for plaintiff's personal
injury attorneys in Maryland bringing a punitive damages claim,
actual malice must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.
The purpose of punitive damages in a case like this is to modify
the defendant's behavior. It is extremely difficult to muster
empirical evidence to evaluate whether punitives have a deterrence
effect because there is no systematic reporting of punitive damages.
Even if there was such data, there are so many other variable
involved that could skew the data. The death penalty deterrance
debate is a perfect example. So the debate among lawyers, judges,
and legislators continues on anecdotal evidence.
Personally, I think this issue is very different from the death
penalty question because corporations do act rationally: the seek
to maximize profits and avoid risk. Accordingly, they act in their
self interest to take steps to avoid risk. People considering
capital offenses are rarely rational and certainly not risk adverse.
In my opinion, punitive damages are necessary in Maryland when
corporate defendants show reckless disregard for the safety of
people like Rosa Delegado.
|
