Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 OCTOBER 2015

Kentucky Supreme Court Sets Forth Helpful Principles On Liability For Punitive Damages

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

Cases in which an appellate court holds that a state's standard for punitive liability was not satisfied even though there was sufficient evidence to support liability for the underlying causes of action are regrettably rare.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Cases in which an appellate court holds that a state's standard for punitive liability was not satisfied even though there was sufficient evidence to support liability for the underlying causes of action are regrettably rare. But in Nissan Motor Co. v. Maddox, the Kentucky Supreme Court recently did just that and in the process set forth some principles that may be helpful to defendants in future cases.

The case arose out of a head-on collision between a car driven by a drunk driver and a 2001 Nissan Pathfinder in which plaintiff Amanda Maddox was a passenger. Maddox, who weighed 240 pounds at the time of the accident, suffered serious injuries. She brought suit against Nissan, alleging that her injuries were caused by a defectively designed restraint system and Nissan's failure to warn about the system's alleged limitations.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from