HOT OFF THE PRESS!

The Arizona Supreme Court released a case TODAY on #Arizona #punitivedamages requirements.?Since 2016, the defense has been struggling with potential punitive damages exposure under Newman v. Select Specialty Hospital, 239 Ariz. 558 (App. 2016).?The just-released case of Swift Transportation v. Hon. Carman/Mountz, No. CV-20-0119-PR, dispenses with the erosion of Arizona’s prima facie punitive damages requirements over the last 15 years.

The Arizona Supreme Court re-iterated its opinion in Volz v. Coleman, 155 Ariz. 567 (1987), indicating that a plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case for punitive damages based on negligence or even gross negligence.?To include the words “reckless indifference” of a substantial harm in a jury instruction would be trial court error.?It is not enough that a defendant had reason to appreciate the severity of the risk his actions imposed at some point in time.?The defendant must have actually appreciated the severity of the risk of his actions before consciously disregarding that risk.?The defendant must have had a subjective appreciation of the risk to which the plaintiff was exposed and the risk must have caused the injury. (Enter: depositions to prove this.)?Further, the plaintiff must have engaged in outrageous conduct (outside the realm of reasonable) with the intent to cause harm, or he must have acted with spite or ill will.?“[O]nly the rare negligence case [] meets this standard.”

Procedurally, in the Swift case, despite all the defendants’ bad facts, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling that the jury could hear the plaintiff’s punitive damages case.?The bad facts simply did not reach the level required to reach a jury, so the plaintiff should not have been permitted to conduct discovery into the defendant’s financial affairs.

Good news for the defense! #defensediva #caselaw